AN EXAMINATION 



OF THE 



SYSTEM OF NEW DIVINITY; 



OB 



NEW SCHOOL THEOLOGY. 



BY REY. FRANCIS HODGSON, 

i < 

OF THE NEW-YORK CONFERENCE. 



u It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye 
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto 
the saints." — Jude, ver. 3. 

" To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them."— Isaiah viii. 20. 



NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY T. MASON AND G. LANE, 

FOB THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 
200 MULBERRY-STREET. 

Collord, Printer. 
1839. 



"Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1839, 
by T. Mason and G. Lane, in the Clerk's Office of the Dis- 
trict Court of the Southern District of New-York. " 




Contr °l Number 




^P 9 * 029054 



PREFACE 

TO 

NEW DIVINITY. 



To the subjects of the following pages, the author has 
devoted much careful reading and patient investigation. 
Observing, some years since, that there was an exciting 
controversy in the leading Calvinistic denominations, he 
was anxious to know what doctrinal changes were taking 
place. It was reported that some of their eminent preach- 
ers had renounced Calvinism, and embraced Arminianism. 
Although he never had any confidence in this report, 
yet it served to stimulate inquiry. While eagerly seek- 
ing for information, and not knowing how to obtain it, 
on account of his remoteness from the scene of disputa- 
tion, he accidentally met with several numbers of the 
Philadelphian, a paper published by the Rev. Dr. Ely. 
They contained the sermon of the Rev. Albert Barnes, on 
" The Way of Salvation the protest against the leave 
granted by the Presbytery of Philadelphia, to the First 
Presbyterian Church, to prosecute a call for Mr. B. to 
become their pastor; Mr. B.'s answer to the protest, with 
several other articles on both sides of the controversy. 
This was a timely and important acquisition The sub- 
ject was now fairly laid open to him — the mystery ex- 
plained. From that time he felt an increasing interest in 
the subject, and carefully treasured up whatever informa- 
tion he received, respecting the doctrines of the New 
School party. 

Meantime, public attention was called to the unscriptural 
character and dangerous tendency of some of the New 
School doctrines, by correspondents of the Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal. The keen and well-directed strictures 
of a writer over the signature of " More Anon" in reply to 



4 



NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 



a series of assaults on Methodism, and the very seasonable 
appearance of the able articles on the " Calvinistic Con- 
troversy," by the late and lamented Dr. Fisk, served to 
increase inquiry, and diffuse information. 

Notwithstanding what had been written, it appeared that 
something more was needed, namely, an exhibition of the 
New School doctrines in their relations as a system. 
Many of these doctrines are brought out prominently, and 
are triumphantly refuted by Dr. Fisk ; but his work re- 
lates to the Calvinistic controversy in general, rather than 
to New Divinity as a system. Prompted by these con- 
siderations, a series of numbers was commenced, in the 
Christian Advocate and Journal. The design was to sup- 
ply this apparent deficiency — to present, without entering 
largely into the argument, an outline of this novel theology 
as a system, and especially to aid in correcting the im- 
pression that it is identical with Methodism. It was 
thought that a few brief articles would accomplish this 
purpose, but as the writer proceeded, the magnitude of the 
work increased. He was apprehensive that it would be dif- 
ficult, without very strong proof, to convince many who are 
sincere inquirers, that certain doctrines are held by those 
to whom they are imputed. It was also supposed that it 
would be unsatisfactory, if not unjust, to rely on a single 
passage to prove a doctrine held by one individual, and 
much more so, by a large class of theologians. Hence he 
was led, not only to quote a number of authors, but also to 
multiply quotations from the same authors. Many of the 
quotations were found to contain not only the doctrine, but 
likewise arguments in support of it, so blended with the 
statement as to render them inseparable. This imposed 
a necessity of going more extensively into the argument 
than was at first designed. Thus the articles extended to 
more than thirty in number, and some of them were quite 
long. 



NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 



:■ 



These numbers were not considered wholly unsuccess- 
ful, and the author has been solicited, by private commu- 
nications, and resolutions of several Annual Conferences, 
to publish them in a volume. 

The author finds it difficult to preclude the conviction 
that the providence of God has been propitious to this un- 
dertaking. Be this as it may, he cannot but think it re- 
markable that, while in situations where the study of this 
controversy could have no immediate bearing on his 
ministerial labours, he could not be satisfied to lay it aside. 
It continued to interest his feelings more and more ; when 
very unexpectedly, he was removed to this city, and placed 
in stations which furnished, for the time, the most favour- 
able situation for pursuing the inquiry — affording, among 
other advantages, access to books and periodicals which 
were previously unknown to him, or beyond his reach. 

In the course of an extensive, and as careful a revision 
as numerous and pressing duties would allow, considerable 
changes have been made in the arrangement of the topics 
and arguments. This circumstance, in addition to the 
fact that much new matter has been added, has induced 
the author to name the divisions of the book chapters, in- 
stead of numbers. 

While the writer cannot but hope that the work will be 
of service to the cause of truth and holiness, he has no 
doubt that it contains imperfections ; but he trusts that the 
importance of the subjects will divert attention from what- 
ever defects may appear. 

Is an apology deemed necessary for entering the arena 
of religious^ controversy 1 The writer is free to confess 
that he has no ambition to be numbered among those 
whose superabundant charity would suffer the truth to fall 
in the streets, rather than buckle on the harness in its de- 
fence ; or with those who profess a freedom from sectarian- 
ism which they fail to exemplify. 



6 



NEW DIVINITY PREFACE. 



With sincere prayers for the blessing of God on his 
labours, and on the persons and interests of those whose 
doctrines he has reviewed, he now commits this work to 
the public. 

F. Hodgson, 

New-York, May 16, 1839. 



Resolutions of the Michigan Annual Conference. 
Resolved, That we highly approve of the articles on New Divinity, 
now being published in the Christian Advocate and Journal, and 
deem them well calculated to counteract the progress of error ; and 
that the author be respectfully requested to finish the subject as 
soon as possible, and to submit the same for publication in book 
form. 

Resolved, That the Agents be respectfully requested to publish, 
in book form, the articles on New Divinity, over the signature of 
F. H., in case the author shall comply with the above resolution ; 
believing, as we do, that such a work is very much needed, and 
will, by God's blessing, prove an effectual antidote against a dan- 
gerous error prevailing in our country. 

Resolution of the Georgia Annual Conference. 
Resolved, That the Book Agents at New- York be requested to 
publish the pieces of F. H. in book form. 

Resolution of the New-Jersey Annual Conference. 

Whereas, a correspondent of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
under the signature of F. II., has furnished a series of numbers on 
New Divinity, in which, with distinguished ability, the errors of that 
system are exposed and refuted ; and whereas we believe their ex- 
tensive circulation, in a revised and durable form, will subserve the 
interests of truth : — 

Therefore, Resolved, That this Conference respectfully request 
their republication by our Book Agents at New- York, pledging our 
influence to give the work a widely extended circulation. 



NEW DIVINITY. 



CHAPTER I. 

ABILITY. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said and written 
on the subject of New Divinity within the last few years, 
the question is frequently asked, and it is one of increasing 
interest, "What are the peculiar tenets of the New School 
party ?" There is considerable anxiety to know wherein 
they differ from those which are held by the Old School 
party, and also, wherein they differ from Methodism. 
Some are of the opinion, that the difference between the 
advocates of the Old and New School theories is trivial- — 
that they are engaged in a war of words. Others suppose 
that they are completely antipodes to each other : that the 
New School theologians have wholly discarded the leading 
tenets of Calvinism, as set forth in the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith, and other creeds of kindred sentiment ; 
and adopted, with very few and almost unnoticeable ex- 
ceptions, the doctrines of the Methodists. 

It is of the utmost importance to the cause of truth that 
the latter impression be corrected and obviated. Method- 
ism and New School Calvinism have no affinities for each 
other. There is, decidedly, less agreement between them 
than there is between Methodism and Old School Calvin- 
ism ; and yet it cannot be denied that the manner of 
preaching of New School divines, especially during times 
of religious excitement, and where the influence of Me- 



8 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



thodism is not inconsiderable, is strongly calculated to 
originate and confirm that supposition. 

They assert, that every man is free to choose life or 
death, — that all may be saved, if they will, — that God sin- 
cerely offers salvation to all men, — that all men have an 
ability to comply with the terms of the gospel, — and that 
every man determines his own final doom. These pro- 
positions are invested with all the importance of leading 
and fundamental doctrines. They often constitute the main 
topics of sermons, and essays, and exhortations, and are 
maintained with elaborate argument, and enforced by 
powerful persuasion. 

It is not uncommon for these preachers to assail the 
opposite notions, and belabour them without mercy ; some- 
times greatly to the offence of the more orthodox members 
and ministers of their own denomination. 

Whether they intend to produce the belief that they 
hold the doctrines of Methodism, in opposition to those 
of Calvinism, or not, it is very extensively produced. And 
one thing is certain, that very little pains, if any, are taken 
by them, to remove it when it exists, or to prevent it when 
it is likely to take place. 

What, then, is the true state of the case ? It is this : — 
The New School Calvinists hold as tenaciously as do 
those of the Old School, the leading distinctive tenets of 
Calvinism, as exhibited in its standards. That " God, from 
all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his 
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
comes to pass that " by the decree of God, for the 
manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are pre- 
destinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to 
everlasting death;" that "these angels and men, thus pre- 
destinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchange- 
ably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite 
that it cannot be either increased or diminished." They 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 9 

are equally pledged and concerned for the maintenance of 
them ; and there is reason to believe that they are equally 
anxious for their universal prevalence. 

It is true, they do not usually assert these doctrines in 
public. They do not exhibit them plainly and distinctively 
in their sermons. They are considered unprofitable topics 
for sermonizing, and laid aside, under the pretext that 
preaching should be practical rather than doctrinal ; that 
preachers should be satisfied with exhibiting the great 
facts of Christianity ; that the world is to be converted by 
preaching, not sectarian, but substantial Christianity ; just 
as if the great Head of the Church had revealed and at- 
tested great and fundamental doctrines, which his minis- 
ters are authorized to label with the odious inscription, 
" sectarian Christianity," and keep out of sight in their 
preaching, as unprofitable or pernicious. They are re- 
served to be inculcated in Bible-classes, at the fire-side, 
and in occasional discourses, when it becomes necessary 
to offer up a sacrifice on the altar of a jealous or offended 
orthodoxy. 

The New School men, however, have not been peculiar 
in studiously keeping those doctrines out of sight in their 
public ministrations. This has, for years, been the com- 
mon policy. They have continued to constitute the basis 
of the discourses delivered from Calvinistic pulpits ; but 
have been so expressed, or implied, as generally to escape 
the detection of the inexperienced observer. Some preach- 
ers, of this class, have succeeded so admirably in this 
work of concealment, that many of their hearers, and mem- 
bers of their churches, are offended and indignant when 
it is alleged that they hold Calvinistic doctrines. 

The peculiarities of New School Calvinism, then, are 
not to be found in a denial of those articles by which the 
creeds of the Calvinistic churches are distinguished, and 
an adoption of the tenets of Methodism, but in one of the 

1* 



10 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



metaphysical theories, by which it is attempted to recon- 
cile the well-known doctrines of Calvinism with the offers 
of a free salvation, and the obligation of all men to repent 
and believe the gospel. It has been extensively dis- 
covered, that the doctrines of a free salvation are the only 
doctrines which secure revivals of religion. Calvinistic 
theologians have found, that while they were engaged in 
opposing these doctrines, as preached by the Methodists 
and others, as anti-scriptural, tending to universalism and 
infidelity, and entirely subversive of the doctrines of grace 
and the plan of salvation, God was rendering the doctrines 
which they opposed instrumental in the conversion of 
many souls, and, in some instances, of almost whole neigh- 
bourhoods. They likewise discovered a desperate revolt- 
ing of the public mind against the exclusive doctrines 
which they attempted to force on its acceptance. This 
attitude of revolt, notwithstanding they very self-compla- 
cently attributed it to the opposition of unregenerate na- 
ture to the truth, they found very difficult to withstand ; 
and the only alternative that presented itself was that of 
adopting and preaching the doctrines of a free salvation. 
This must be done, or infidelity and irreligion on the one 
hand, or an equally abhorred Armmianism, alias Method- 
ism, on the other, will take the field. 

But here arises a difficulty of no small, magnitude. 
The doctrines that salvation is free for all ; that it is sin- 
cerely offered to all ; and that all may accept it ; are directly 
and obviously at war with the doctrines that " by the 
decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some 
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, 
and others foreordained to everlasting death ;" " that these 
angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are 
particularly and unchangeably designed ; and their num- 
ber is so certain and definite that it cannot be either in- 
creased or diminished ;" " that the elect, and none other, 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



II 



are redeemed by Christ." They have occupied the field 
against each other in determined and protracted hostility. 
The latter doctrines these divines were not prepared to 
surrender. They firmly believed them, and were pledged 
to their support. 

What, then, is to be done ? An attempt must be made to 
reduce these conflicting propositions to an agreement. The 
doctrines of a free salvation must be preached, and yet the 
opposite doctrines must be retained, and must constitute 
the standard of orthodoxy. Hence some ground must be 
sought out on which they can be united. How shall this 
be accomplished ? This has been styled by the late Rev. 
Robert Hall, " The great question." Its solution has been 
attempted, and to this attempt we are indebted for the 
theory which constitutes New School Calvinism. 

This theory has its commencement in certain definitions 
and distinctions on the subject of ability. The reason of 
these definitions and distinctions is as follows : — If men 
have not power to repent and believe the gospel, it is use- 
less to offer salvation to them, or to enjoin on them re- 
pentance and faith ; and sinners are in possession of a 
valid and unanswerable excuse for living in impenitence 
and unbelief. It must, therefore, be allowed, that all men 
have ability to perform these exercises and accept salva- 
tion. But, if this be granted without some qualification, 
what becomes of the doctrine of the eternal and unchange- 
able foreordination of every event that comes to pass ? 
Will it not plainly follow, that men have power to act 
otherwise than as God ordained from all eternity, and that 
doctrine be endangered or exploded ? What will become 
of the doctrine that God has elected a certain number of 
angels and of men to eternal life, and that the number is 
so definite that it cannot be added to or diminished? Will 
it not follow that the non-elect may accept the offer of sal- 
vation, and be saved, in despite of their non-election, and 



12 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



thus frustrate the immutable decrees of sovereign and dis- 
tinguishing grace and wrath ? 

The speculations to which we have referred are de- 
signed to meet and obviate this difficulty. It is concluded 
that all men must be supposed to have ability, in some 
sense, to perform what is required of them in order to sal- 
vation. And yet, there must be some insuperable diffi- 
culty in the way of the reprobate portion of mankind. We 
are, therefore, notified, that all men have a natural, or 
physical ability, but the possession of this is supposed to 
be compatible with the absence of another kind of ability, 
which is equally indispensable. The distinction of ability 
into natural and moral is resorted to, and we are told, that 
all have the natural, but all have not the moral ability. 
Or, if the term, " moral ability" be rejected, as it is by 
some, there is supposed to be a disinclination, which no- 
thing but the special grace of God ever did, or ever can 
overcome. On the ground of natural ability, they offer 
salvation to all ; urge on all the obligation to repent and be- 
lieve the gospel ; and vindicate the justice of the divine go- 
vernment in the condemnation and everlasting punishment 
of the impenitent. On the ground of the moral inability, 
or the disinclination which none ever did, or can over- 
come, without special grace, they erect the entire struc- 
ture of rigid, old-fashioned Calvinism. No man has the 
indispensable moral ability, or the will, to repent and be- 
lieve, unless God gives it to him, and he gives it to whom 
he pleases : he gives it to none but those who were elected 
to salvation from all eternity. This doctrine may not al- 
ways be brought out prominently in their discourses on 
human ability. It is often placed as a sentinel to guard 
the doctrines of grace from violation, while the doctrine of 
natural ability is mainly insisted upon. 

Some of the advocates of the New Divinity have like- 
wise, for the purpose of reconciling a free salvation with 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



13 



Calvinism, a distinction on the subject of atonement. It 
is perceived, at a single glance, that if the atonement be 
limited — if Christ did not die for all — it is absolutely im- 
possible that all should be saved ; and therefore it is use- 
less to offer salvation to all. On the other hand, if Christ 
died for all without any reserve or qualification, their doc- 
trine of election is exploded. A distinction is therefore 
made between the atonement and the application of it — 
between atonement and redemption. 

The atonement, it is said, was made for all, and is 
equally applicable to all, but its actual application, which 
is absolutely necessary to salvation, is restricted, by an 
eternal decree, to the elect. They alone are the objects 
of redemption. 

The bearing of this distinction is readily perceived. 
Put the natural ability and the general atonement toge- 
ther, and you have the ground of their offers of salvation 
to all, and appeals to the consciences of sinners. Stand- 
ing on this ground, they can preach as though they had 
verily renounced Calvinism ; and many of their hearers 
may go away, gravely and earnestly affirming that there 
is not the least difference between their preaching and 
that of the Methodists ; and yet they are decided Calvin- 
ists, and view the doctrines of Methodism with abhorrence. 
They secure their Calvinism by the doctrines of moral 
inability, and a limited application of the atonement, or a 
limited redemption. 

Whether this distinction is held by all who are classed 
with the New School party or not, the writer is uncertain. 
It is not held by all who hold the distinction on ability, 
The Rev. Dr. Ely, for instance, is a warm advocate for the 
doctrines of natural ability and moral inability ; and yet he 
holds the doctrine of limited atonement, as will appear by 
a reference to the files of the Philadelphia^. How he 
reconciles the doctrine, that all may be saved if they will, 



14 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



with the doctrine that Christ did not die for all, is a some- 
what puzzling question. 

Perhaps he thinks that if any one for whom Christ has 
not died has a disposition to be saved, Christ will yet die 
for him! Or, perhaps, this subject is too profound for 
Methodist preachers, every one of whom, he some time 
since affirmed, preaches all he knows to his congregation 
twice every two years. 



CHAPTER II. 

ABILITY CONTINUED. 

Having, in the preceding chapter, referred the New 
School theory to its source, we shall now proceed to de- 
velope it more fully, and attempt its refutation. 

The doctrine of the natural ability of fallen and de- 
praved man, to do whatever is required of him by the 
divine government, leads, by a course of easy and obvious 
inference, to the doctrines, that all depravity is in the will; 
that depravity and holiness consist solely in voluntary ac- 
tion ; that infants have no moral character ; that regene- 
ration consists in a voluntary change of purpose ; that the 
Holy Spirit, in regenerating a sinner, operates by " moral 
suasion" merely; that the first movement of a sinner 
toward God — the very first obedient act — constitutes sub- 
mission, or regeneration ; that the sinner converts himself, 
or changes his own heart ; that for a sinner to pray to 
God before submission, or regeneration, is not only 
useless but rebellious, and adds to his condemnation ; 
that the sinner has no right to use any of the means of 
grace, as conducing to his salvation ; that painful convic- 
tions for sin, and anxiety for the favour of God, are not 
only unnecessary, but wholly indicative of rebellion, and 



NEW DIVINITY AEILITV. 15 

render the condition of those who are so exercised worse 
than before ; and that the convicted sinner is entitled to 
no sympathy, on account of his distress of mind, inas- 
much as he can terminate it, by submission, whenever he 
pleases. 

These consequences, and others which may hereafter 
be brought to light, have been acknowledged and adopted, 
and form so many articles in the creed of the thoroughly 
indoctrinated New School Calvinist. We shall defer the 
task of proving that these consequences are held as doc- 
trines, by those to whom we ascribe them, and of tracing 
their logical connection, until we come to take them up 
separately for refutation. Our first effort will be directed 
to the investigation of those views of ability on which the 
fabric is based. 

As the scheme of New Divinity is grossly contradictory 
in itself, and the manner in which its advocates sometimes 
assert the doctrine of the sinner's dependance on spiritual 
influence leads many to suppose that the doctrine of a 
natural ability to repent and believe the gospel is not only 
not held, but positively denied, it may not be unimportant 
to prepare our way by adducing a few examples, in con- 
firmation of what we have asserted on this subject. 

The Rev. George Duffield, who occupies a prominent 
position in the ranks of New Divinity, having written a 
considerable volume in exposition and support of its prin- 
ciples, distinctly avows the doctrine under consideration. 
" That men are destitute of the natural ability, that is, the 
constitutional capacities requisite to believe and repent, 
<fec, none will explicitly affirm." — Duffield on Regenera- 
tion, p. 317. 

A^ain : — " Not much less deluding are the system and 
tactics of those who, fearing to invade the province of the 
Spirit, are careful to remind the sinner, at every turn, that 
he is utterly unable, by his own unassisted powers, either 



16 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



to believe or repent to the saving of his soul. It might as 
truly be said, that he cannot rise and walk by his own un- 
assisted powers, &c." — Ibid., 542. 

It is thus asserted by the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Phila- 
delphia, in his Sermon on " The Way of Salvation :"— 
" In the representation of this scheme, I proceed to re- 
mark, in the third place, that while God thus sincerely 
offers the gospel to men, all mankind, while left to them- 
selves, as sincerely and cordially reject it. It is not to 
any want of physical strength, that this rejection is owing; 
for men have power enough in themselves to hate both 
God and their fellow-men ; and it requires less physical 
power to love God than to hate him." — Barnes* Defence^. 24. 

In a note to the preceding passage, he remarks, " The 
distinction, then, between natural and moral ability referred 
to here is not one of mere speculation. It enters into all 
preaching ; and this single distinction will give a com- 
plexion to all a man's theology, and to all his efforts to 
save men." 

A comparison of these passages will show that he uses 
the terms physical and natural as synonymous, in this ap- 
plication of them, and that he means by natural, or physi- 
cal ability, that " men have power enough in themselves" 
to love God. Indeed we are told that it is more difficult 
to hate God than to love him. 

The Rev. Dr. Beecher, after quoting a number of au- 
thorities in support of his opinion, says, " I now add : — 
That the Bible teaches the free agency and natural ability 
of man to obey or disobey. 

And on page eighty-four he remarks, " On this argument 
we observe : — That these implications of the Bible do 
clearly, and in the strongest possible manner, treat the 
doctrine of man's free agency and natural ability to obey 
or disobey the gospel, as the foundation of his obligation." 

It is thus avowed by the Rev. Charles G. Finney :— 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 17 

" In the light of this subject, you can see the nature and 
degree of the sinner's dependance on the Spirit of God. 
The Spirit's agency is not needed to give him power, but 
to overcome his voluntary obstinacy. Some persons seem 
to suppose that the Spirit is employed to give the sinner 
power — that he is unable to obey God without the Spirit's 
agency. I am alarmed when I hear such declarations as 
these ; and were it not that I suppose there is a sense in 
which a man's heart may be better than his head, I should 
feel bound to maintain, that persons holding this sentiment 
were not Christians at all." — Sermons, p. 24. 

The Quarterly Christian Spectator, formerly published 
at New-Haven, but recently merged in the American Bib- 
lical Repository, published in New- York, speaks out ex- 
plicitly on this subject ; and as this has been the leading 
periodical in the interests of New Divinity, the reader will 
pardon us if we make one or two extensive quotations from 
its pages. In an extract from a work entitled " Edson's 
Letters to the Conscience," which is reviewed with ap- 
probation, especially that part to which our attention is 
now called, we have the following sentiments : — 

" But it is asked, can a sinner repent without the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit 1 

" I reply, in answer, that the Spirit is not necessary to 
give power or capacity to repent ; but to make the sinner 
willing to repent, — willing to use the power he has to be 
sorry, in actually being sorry. Here, you perceive, that 
the only difficulty in the way is obstinacy, — the sinner will 
not yield to God ; will not come to Christ for life. This 
is the whole difficulty. It is of precisely the same na- 
ture with that of the stubborn child, who will not be sorry 
for having voluntarily and wilfully disobeyed his parent. 
And it may be that he will continue to stand out, until the 
parent takes some effectual measure to subdue his obsti- 
nacy. But still, this does not prove that he could not have 



18 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



yielded before. No new power was needed, which he did 
not before possess. And the fact that the sinner never 
will yield to God, and repent of sin, without the influences 
of the Holy Spirit, does not touch the question in regard 
to capacity or power." — Vol. vii, No. 4, p. 635. 

This subject is brought up in a review of " Sprague on 
Revivals." In this article, as in several others to which 
we might refer, not only is the doctrine of natural ability 
affirmed, but its opposition to the doctrine of Methodism, 
on this subject, is distinctly recognised : — 

" That God should command what man has no power 
to perform is irreconcilable with all our conceptions of 
the divine character. Ability to do his duty he must pos- 
sess, either in himself considered, as a moral agent, or in 
the promised influences of the Holy Spirit, raising his 
4 lapsed powers' to a capacity for obedience. The former 
of these suppositions is New-England Calvinism, the latter 
is evangelical Arminianism. We need not say to which 
party Dr. Sprague belongs. In common with his New- 
England brethren, he describes the whole difficulty of the 
sinner as consisting in a * settled aversion' to his duty. 
But an aversion, we all know, implies no real inability, 
and receives the name only in a figurative sense to de- 
scribe its strength and permanence." — Yol. v, No. l,p. 37. 

Here we have two theories presented. One is, that 
man possesses ability to do his duty, in himself, as a moral 
agent ; the other, that he has the ability, not in himself, 
however, but in the promised influence of the Holy Spirit, 
raising his ' lapsed powers.' The former is claimed as 
New-England Calvinism. The latter is rejected as evan- 
gelical Arminianism. 

There is a similar passage, but more full and copious, 
on page 39, in which reference is made to some doctrinal 
statements of Dr. Griffin, which are considered excep- 
tionable. 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



19 



" This statement of Dr. Griffin is followed by another, 
which brings him, as far as we can see, directly on the 
ground of evangelical Arminianism. ' They (sinners) are 
bound to go forth to their work at once, but they are not 
bound to go alone : it is their duty to cast themselves in- 
stantly on the Holy Ghost, and not take a single step in 
their own strength. — App. p. 161. Now it is not possi- 
ble, we apprehend, to invent a statement more directly 
contradictory than this, to the fundamental principle of 
New-England Calvinism. That principle is, that man is, 
in himself, a free agent, and not made such by the influ- 
ence of the Spirit : that he is bound, as a free agent, to ' go 
forth at once to the work' of obeying God, in the exercise 
of power conferred in creation, and not superinduced by 
grace, that is, to go ' ALONE :' that as a complete moral 
agent in himself considered, he is bound to obey God in 
his ' own strength? this being made in the law the very 
measure of his obedience : that there is no promise, grant, 
or ' privilege' belonging to the unconverted, and no ' duty' 
which they can perform short of giving their hearts to 
God; and, therefore, that it is not, as Arminians teach, 
' their privilege and duty to cast themselves on the Holy 
Ghost' to be made holy, but to become holy at once, by the 
exercise of repentance and faith in Christ. These, un- 
deniably, are the views of all New-England Calvinists, in 
opposition to the scheme of Evangelical Arminians." 

This passage needs no comment. It asserts strongly 
that man is able, and bound, to do what is required of him, 
without the influences of the Holy Spirit; and it as strongly 
contradicts the opposite opinion. 

We beg leave to present another quotation to show how 
this subject is viewed by the New School Calvinists in 
England. It is from the pen of John Howard Hinton, 
A. M., an eminent writer among the Baptists, and con- 
tained in a treatise on " The Work of the Holy Spirit in 



20 



NEW DIVINITY AEILITY. 



Conversion." After arguing, at some length, the question 
of the sinner's ability, he announces, in italics, the following 
conclusion : 4 t The means of repentance , therefore, and all 
the means of repentance, are possessed by a sinner without 
the Spirit ; but the possession of the means of repentance 
constitutes the power of repentance ; therefore, a sinner has 
power to repent without the Spirit." — Page 126. 

Were we to adduce all the testimonies on this point that 
are within our reach, they would fill a volume ; but the 
foregoing are sufficient. 

It is not designed to make the impression that the New 
School party are alone in asserting, and maintaining, this 
doctrine of natural ability. It was maintained by the dis- 
tinguished President Edwards, who is almost canonized 
as a theologian, by the Old School party, and also by Owen, 
Witherspoon, and others, who are counted among the 
princes of Old School theology. These men, in the emer- 
gencies to which the arguments of Arminianism subjected 
them, sowed the wind of doctrine from which the whirl- 
wind has grown, that now shakes and rends the Calvin- 
istic churches. 

The question now in dispute is one which must be 
settled by the authority of the holy Scriptures, and to their 
arbitration every Christian controversialist will cheerfully 
appeal and submit. If they give their sanction to the theory 
we oppose, we shall feel bound to forego our opposition. 
We turn, therefore, " to the law and the testimony." Do 
they teach that the sinner has the ability, naturally and 
independently of grace, to perform, at any moment, those 
acts of holiness which are necessary to salvation, and that 
all he wants is the will to do so ? Just the contrary. The 
Apostle Paul says, " The carnal mind is enmity against 
God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
can be," Rom. viii, 7. It is here plainly affirmed of the 
carnal mind, that it cannot obey the law of God. The ad- 



NEW DIVINITY— ABILITY. 



21 



vocates of New Divinity, however, profess to consider this 
passage in favour of their theory rather than against it. 
Mr. Dufheld tells us that " when Paul says of the ' carnal 
mind,' that it ' is not subject to the law of God, neither 
indeed can be,' he is not speaking of the essential mind, 
but that mind's exercises, as any Greek scholar will at 
once perceive : so that, instead of furnishing an objection, 
this passage is a strong confirmation of that for which we 
contend." And suppose we admit that he is speaking of 
the " mind's exercises," and not the " essential mind ;" is 
there no contradiction between the doctrine, that the sin- 
ner has a natural ability to subject the exercises of his 
mind to the law of God, and the apostle's declaration, first 
of the fact, that the exercises of his mind " are not subject 
to the law of God," and, secondly, that they cannot be 
subject to it? What is to hinder their subjection to the 
law of God, if the " essential mind" can subject them to 
it at pleasure ? Is the apostle's declaration, that the " ex- 
ercises" of the sinner's mind are not subject to the law of 
God, and cannot be subject to it, a " strong confirmation" 
of the doctrine of the sinner's natural ability to subject 
them to the law whenever he will ? Then, verily, the laws 
of evidence must have undergone some great change, or 
Mr. Duffield is not very scrupulous as to the nature of the 
evidence on which he relies. 

But whether the apostle affirms that the " essential 
mind" is carnal, and at enmity with God, or not, it is not 
difficult to infer that this is the case, from what Mr. Duf- 
field supposes him to affirm. These carnal exercises are 
put forth by the " essential mind." They are exercises 
of the mind. But if all the exercises of the " essential 
mind" are carnal, and enmity against God, what shall we 
say of the mind which puts forth these exercises 1 Is it 
not carnal ? To assert that all the exercises of the essen- 
tial mind are carnal, and enmity against God, and yet that 



22 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 

the mind itself is not carnal, would be just as consistent 
as to assert, that a man may invariably perform wicked 
actions, and not be a wicked man. According to this 
mode of interpretation, when the apostle charges some 
with being enemies to the cross of Christ, we are not to 
understand him, that the individuals themselves — the " es- 
sential" men and women, are the enemies in question, but 
merely that their actions are enemies of the cross of Christ. 
Now, it is of that which is carnal that the apostle predi- 
cates, that it " is not subject to the law of God, neither 
indeed can be." 

Equally adverse to the tenet we oppose, is the declara- 
tion of the apostle, " The natural man discerneth not the 
things of the spirit of God ; neither can he know them, be- 
cause they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii, 14. The 
doctrine of this text is, that there are spiritual things, with 
respect to which the natural man is so situated, that while 
he remains in that condition, he neither discerns them, 
nor can discern them. To be able to discern them, he 
must undergo a great change. He must become a spirit- 
ual man. 

Similar is the effect of these words of our Lord, " How 
can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and 
seek not the honour which cometh from God only," John 
v, 44. The state of mind, in which the honour which com- 
eth of men is preferred to the honour which cometh from 
God, is represented as rendering its possessors unable to 
exercise the faith that is required of them. 

An attempt is made to dispose of many of those pas- 
sages in which the inability of the sinner is asserted, by 
affirming that the terms can, and cannot, do not always 
imply ability, and inability, but often disinclination, or want 
of will, merely. That these terms are frequently used 
figuratively, to signify inconvenience, or strong disinclina- 
tion, and their correlatives, is undeniable. But in their 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



23 



literal and proper application, they invariably express the 
idea of power. How is the idea of inability to be more 
strongly expressed than by the following passages : — " Can 
we go on hot coals and not be burnt ?" Prov. vi, 28. " Can 
any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him, 
saith the Lord," Jer. xxiii, 24. " Can the fig-tree, my 
brethren, bear olive-berries ? either a vine, figs ? So can 
no fountain both yield salt water and fresh," James iii, 12. 
To infer that this language does not import inability, when 
applied to other subjects, merely because the term can, 
and its correlative, are sometimes used figuratively to sig- 
nify something else than ability and inability, is to reason 
as soundly as the Universalist does, when he contends that 
the term "hell" does not represent a place of future and 
eternal punishment, because it is also used to signify the 
grave, or the place of departed spirits. And yet our op- 
ponents seem to think that they have fairly disposed of 
these texts, by saying that the terms under consideration 
do not always convey the idea of power. But who needs 
that information ? Let them prove that these terms, in the 
texts we have adduced, or may adduce, are intended to 
express willingness or unwillingness merely, and we will 
give them up. Nor will it answer for them to interpret the 
texts by their theory — to say that they cannot mean ina- 
bility because it is contrary to the nature of things ; for that 
is the very point in dispute. Whether their views of the 
nature of things are correct, is to be determined by the 
authority of Scripture, and will depend on their agreement 
with its dictates. And when they choose to affirm that 
man has a natural ability to do that which the Scriptures 
as plainly affirm he cannot do, whose authority, as to the 
nature of things, is to be decisive ? 

We do not rely on these Scripture testimonies, as co- 
vering the w r hole ground in dispute. They directly con- 
tradict the doctrine, that the sinner has a natural ability, 



24 



NEW DIVINITY— ABILITY. 



at any moment, to do whatever may be required of him Ui 
order to salvation. They instruct us that the performance 
of many of these things requires a state of mind directly 
opposite to that by which he is characterized ; so that, 
while he remains in his present state of mind, he can no 
more perform the exercises of holiness than he can see 
from the depths of the valley the objects that can be seen 
only from the summit of the mountain. But then, we 
readily admit that they determine nothing as to his ability 
to bring about a change in the state of his mind. If it be 
affirmed that he has a natural ability to enter upon, and 
go through with, that process which will bring him into 
another state of mind, and to uphold himself in that con- 
dition, we do not depend on these texts to prove the con- 
trary. 

The Scriptures, however, do not desert us at this inte- 
resting point in our inquiries. They furnish the most 
explicit avowals on the subject. Our Saviour spoke de- 
cisively when he said, "No man can come unto me, except 
the Father, which hath sent me, draw him," John vi, 44. 
There can be no question as to what is meant by coming 
to Christ. For the power to do this, we are declared to be 
dependant on divine influence. Mr. Barnes endeavours 
to shield his theory from the stroke which this passage 
inflicts, by the old standing contrivance of insisting that 
the phraseology employed does not always signify inability. 
He tells us that the Saviour did not intend to assert any 
thing as to the ability of the sinner, but merely that, as a 
historical fact, " No man ever did or will repent, except as 
influenced by the Spirit."— Defence, p. 158. But where 
is the proof of this ? The interpretation of Mr. Barnes is 
perfectly gratuitous. It is suggested solely by his theory. 
The inability of the sinner to come to Christ, without aid, 
could not be more strongly affirmed. 

Mr. Hinton endeavours to evade the force of this text by 



NEW DIVINITY — -ABILITY. 



25 



commenting on the word " draw." " Drawing" he says, 
" is a process not any way adapted to the need of a man 
who has no power ; it pertains rather to one w T ho wants in- 
clination." — Page 226. We are at a loss to determine 
what idea Mr. Hinton attaches to the term " draw." To 
our mind it does not determine specifically the mode of the 
influence used which is exerted. Besides, it is not used 
with reference to one who has "no power" but who has 
not power to come to Christ. Because a man cannot do 
every thing, it does not follow that he cannot do any thing. 
And since the Saviour has plainly assured us of the ina- 
bility of the sinner to come to him, without the Spirit's 
influence, we care not to dispute about the propriety of 
the term he has selected to represent the influence which 
is necessary. 

But our interpretation of this passage is abundantly con- 
firmed by other passages. Our Lord on another occasion 
said to his disciples, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the 
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the 
vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the 
vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in me, and I 
in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit : for without 
me ye can do nothing," John v, 4, 5. In this text the 
ability to "bear fruit," or obey God, is made to depend on 
abiding in Christ, and the influence which that union se- 
cures, just as much as the fruitfulness of the branch de- 
pends on its connection with the vine, and the influence 
wdiich the vine imparts. It is therefore directly at va- 
riance with the doctrine of New Divinity on this sub- 
ject. Will it be pretended that the words can and cannot, 
do not, in this instance, refer to power 1 Then it is impos- 
sible to place them in any connection which will give 
them, determinately, that meaning. The bearing which 
this text has on the point in controversy, is not affected, in 
the least, by the consideration that it respects the ability 

2 



26 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



of the Christian to perform the duties of holiness. For 
if the regenerate man cannot bear the fruits of holiness of 
himself — if his ability to do this depends on his spiritual 
connection with Christ — it would be absurd enough to ima- 
gine that the unregenerate man is, of himself, competent 
to the task. 

The declaration, " Without me ye can do nothing," is 
supposed, by Mr. Duffield, to refer to that divine energy 
by which we are upheld in being, and in the exercise of 
our faculties, and not to the additional gracious influences 
necessary to holiness. It is important to ascertain what 
is the mind of the Spirit, in any inspired communication, 
but it is a matter of perfect indifference to our argument 
whether we adopt Mr. Duffield's interpretation or not. 
Supposing it to be correct, the Saviour enforces his ex- 
hortation to abide in him by two considerations. One, is 
the necessity of abiding in him, in order to be able to bring 
forth fruit. The other, is the fact that we are also de- 
pendant on him, who claims our services, for the continu- 
ance of our lives. 

The doctrine of a natural ability, to repent and believe 
the gospel, is pointedly contradicted by the following 
words : "Can the Ethiopian change his skin and the leo- 
pard his spots ? Then may ye also do good that are ac- 
customed to do evil," Jer. xiii, 23. This is felt by the 
advocates of that doctrine to be an important passage. 
Mr. Hinton makes a resolute, yet ineffectual effort to carry 
his theory over the difficulty it interposes. He lays down 
the following rule for the interpretation of metaphorical 
passages : " We have only to notice the features in which 
the objects compared agree or disagree : in those in which 
they agree, the ordinary import which is now metaphorically 
used will apply ; in those in which they do not agree, its ap~ 
plication is not to be attempted" To this rule we have no 
objection, but it fails to render Mr. Hinton any service 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



27 



in this instance. He proceeds to its application, and we 
ask the attention of the reader to the process. He first 
decides, authoritatively, that there is no agreement between 
the objects compared, namely, the sinner, and the Ethio- 
pian, and leopard, with respect to power, and then his rule 
requires that he should look elsewhere for the point of 
agreement. Accordingly, after having assured us that " It 
is evident that there is no similarity in the two cases in re- 
spect of capability of change, and on this point therefore 
nothing can be learnt from the comparison," he decides 
that, " the aspect in wilich the cases are similar is the 
actual nonproduction of the result, and the certainty that it 
will not be produced" But we wrnild suggest to Mr. Hin- 
ton that there is a difference of opinion, as to whether the 
objects may be compared in respect to " capability of 
change." This is the very point in question. Nor can 
we consent that it shall be settled in so summary a man- 
ner. We have appealed from the philosophy of New 
Divinity, and brought the question to be settled by the au- 
thority of inspiration, and have found a text expressly de- 
signed to assert the similarity which Mr. Hinton denies. 
It teaches, in plain terms, that the wicked man can no 
more make himself a good man than the Ethiopian can 
change his skin, or the leopard his spots. But the advo- 
cates of New Divinity seem determined that the Scriptures 
shall give us no information on this subject, but such as 
accords with their theory. If Christ himself declares, in 
plain, literal terms, that no man can come unto him, with- 
out divine influence, they tell us that he means nothing 
more than that no man will come unto him without such, 
influence ; that he says nothing about the power. If he 
assures us that it is impossible for men, unaided, to repent 
and believe, Mr. Hinton says that, " when the matter 
comes to be examined, it will be found that, with' whatever 
force we may use the terms cannot and impossible, we do 



28 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



not mean that we are destitute of power." This therefore 
is no proof of inability. If, to make the matter still more 
definite, comparisons are instituted, and the word of inspi- 
ration assures us that the sinner can no more do, with- 
out divine assistance, what is required of him, than the 
Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots, 
or the branch bear fruit of itself, separated from the vine, 
these theorists insist that there is no similarity between 
the objects compared in respect to ability ; that the sinner 
is able, without the Spirit's influences, to do whatever God 
demands of him ; that the comparison must refer to some- 
thing else than ability, and therefore " indicates nothing 
respecting the sinner's ability." Such criticism sets all 
authority on the subject at defiance. 

It is universally understood that the term cannot is fre- 
quently used to signify strong disinclination ; but it is 
doubtful whether it is used to state, as a matter of fact 
merely, that an event will not take place. When we say 
of a friend, that he cannot go to a certain place at a cer- 
tain time, we have reference to an impediment in some 
form. We mean that there is an insuperable hinderance 
to his going, or that it is very inconvenient for him to go, 
or that he is strongly disinclined to go. We do not use 
the term cannot to signify merely that, as a matter of fact, 
he will not go. Mr. Hinton, therefore, takes a greater 
liberty with the text than appears at the first glance. He 
not only decides, without any evidence, that the word can 
is used in this instance figuratively, but gives it a mean- 
ing that it never bears. However, he does not abide by 
any one interpretation. He tells us, in the same para- 
graph, that the metaphor " does nothing more than express 
emphatically the fixedness of a sinner's determination." It 
appears, then, that it does something more than state the 
fact that the change will not be produced. It specifies 
the cause of that fact, — the fixedness of a sinner's deter- 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



29 



mination. Are we to understand, then, that this is the 
point of agreement ? The Ethiopian may, possibly, have 
a fixed determination not to change his skin. The leopard 
may have obstinately made up his mind not to change his 
spots. But the text gives us no information to this effect. 
It tells us, in plain terms, that they cannot do these things, 
and definitely specifies the inability as the point of simili- 
tude. 

The following passage also bears decisively on the sub- 
ject of controversy: "Verily, I say unto you, that a rich 
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And 
again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through 
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the king- 
dom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were ex- 
ceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved ? But 
Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is 
impossible, but with God all things are possible," Matt, 
xix, 23-26. 

In these words the Saviour, in the first instance, in- 
structs his disciples that the difficulty of entering the king- 
dom of God is increased by the circumstances in which 
riches place their possessors. He then goes further, and 
asserts an impossibility in the case. This he does by a 
very strong comparison — " It is easier for a camel to go 
through the eye of a needle." That he meant to affirm 
an impossibility by these words is plain, from the subse- 
quent declaration — "With men* it is impossible." The 
reply of the disciples indicates that they so understood 
him. It cannot, however, be supposed that this impossi- 
bility is created by the possession of riches — that while it 
is impossible for the rich, it is possible for the poor to 
enter the kingdom of God. For then, we must conclude, 
either that no rich men enter the kingdom of God. or that 
God employs an influence to enable them, which is not 
necessary in the case of others. If the first supposition 



30 



NEW DIVINITY — -ABILITY. 



were adopted, it would be contradicted by facts, as re- 
corded in Scripture. If the second, all rich men would 
be admitted exceptions to the doctrine of a natural ability 
to repent and believe. The meaning of the Saviour's as- 
sertion of impossibility is explained by the declaration, 
" With men it is impossible" — men in general — all men. It 
is also sufficiently evident that our Lord did not intend to 
affirm an absolute impossibility, but merely so far as un- 
aided human power is concerned. " With men it is im- 
possible." This impossibility is and must be removed by 
divine influence. " With God all things are possible." 

Will it be objected here that the Saviour restricts the 
comparison to rich men, and therefore our interpretation 
involves the absurdity that there are degrees of impossi- 
bility — that it is more impossible for a rich than for a poor 
man ? We reply that he did not intend to restrict it to 
rich men. When the disciples, astonished at his words, 
asked who then could be saved, he confirmed the impres- 
sion produced, by applying the declaration to men in ge- 
neral. He applied it to rich men in the first instance, 
because he was speaking of rich men. He may also have 
had some special design in giving the general principle 
this particular application. Besides, if we were to adopt 
the principle of interpretation which New Divinity prefers, 
and understand the words as teaching, merely, that a camel 
will sooner go through the eye of a needle than a rich man 
will enter the kingdom of God without divine influence, 
nothing would be gained, for they understand this to be 
equally true of all men, and are therefore as much exposed 
to the objection as their opponents. 

Perhaps it may be objected, that, allowing that there is 
an impossibility affecting all men in this matter, it is ab- 
surd to talk of the difficulty being greater in the case of 
the rich than of the poor. But the objection would not be 
valid. For ? when grace has removed the impossibility, 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



31 



there may be various degrees of difficulty, according to 
the habits of men, and the circumstances in which they 
are placed. 

The doctrine of the text under consideration is, that it 
is impossible for men, rich or poor, to do, without divine 
influence, what is necessary to their entering the kingdom 
of God ; that, when the impossibility is thus removed, the 
performance of the exercises required may still be attend- 
ed with difficulty, which may be increased or diminished 
by circumstances ; and that the possession of riches con- 
stitutes a great difficulty, so that a rich man shall hardly 
enter the kingdom of God. 

The attention of the reader is now asked to a third 
class of Scriptures, bearing still more decisively, if possi- 
ble, on the point in question. The apostle, in the epistle 
to the Galatians, uses this language ■ " For the flesh lust- 
eth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; 
and these are contrary the one to the other ; so that ye 
cannot do the things that ye would," v, 17. Had the 
apostle foreseen the heresy we are combating, and de- 
signed to record his decision against it, he could not have 
used language more expressive of his design. He not 
only uses terms which convey the idea of inability, but 
expressly cuts off the pretence that the difficulty is solely 
a want of will. He asserts inability to do that to which 
the will is favourable. An attempt to conform this text 
to the New School theory would make it say, Ye would 
not do the things that ye would. 

There is a parallel passage in the epistle to the Ro- 
mans : — " For w^e know that the law is spiritual ; but I 
am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow 
not ; for what I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, 
that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent 
unto the law, that it is good. Now, then, it is no more I 
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me : for I know that in 



32 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing : for to 
will is present with me, but how to perform that which is 
good I find not ; for the good that I would, I do not ; but 
the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that 
I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwell- 
eth in me. I find then a law that when I would do good, 
evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God, 
after the inward man ! But I see another law in my mem- 
bers warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me 
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 
O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the 
body of this death?" Chap, vii, 14, &c. 

Here is the most direct and explicit contradiction of the 
doctrine, that the sinner is subject to no other inability, 
respecting the law of God, than mere unwillingness, that 
could possibly be framed. 

But the advocates of New Divinity are so accustomed 
to reconciling contradictions, that they do not readily aban- 
don a favourite theory on account of them. It requires 
but a flourish of Mr. Dufheld's pen to sweep these for- 
midable difficulties aside, and press the scriptures which 
originate them into his service. On the passage from 
Galatians he thus comments : — When the English trans- 
lation makes the same apostle say, ' the flesh lusteth 
against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and 
these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot 
do the things that ye would,'' it will be seen by every one 
acquainted with the original, that the word cannot is not 
used by the apostle himself. He merely states the fact, 
that those in whom the conflict between the flesh and 
Spirit is waged, do not the things they would." 

Admitting the propriety of this criticism, there is nothing 
gained by it. The doctrine which the text is brought for- 
ward to disprove is, that the sole reason why the law of 
God is not kept, is the want of a will to keep it ; that this 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



33 



is the only obstacle. But, according to Mr. Duffield's 
own rendering, the will is present, and yet the things that 
are willed are not done. " Ye do not the things that ye 
would." So that we are compelled to assign some other 
cause for the failure than want of will. The explanation 
Mr. Dufheld gives is, " Such is the activity of the conflict, 
that a present purpose of will is succeeded and counter- 
acted by another, before it is executed." But in this ex- 
planation the author contradicts, first himself, and then the 
apostle. He grants that there " is a present purpose of 
will," which, according to his theory of ability, is all that 
is necessary, and yet admits the failure ; thus contradict- 
ing himself. He then contradicts the apostle by persist- 
ing to assign the want of will as the sole cause of the 
failure. The "present purpose of will" is so temporary 
and powerless, that before the tilings willed have time to 
be executed, it is absent. It is " succeeded and counter- 
acted" by a purpose of will not to do, which is the reason 
why the things are not done, whereas the apostle says, 
"Ye cannot do," or ye do not, "the tilings that ye would." 

The author, however, is not sure of what character the 
will is, of which the apostle speaks ; whether it is sinful 
or holy. He says, " The Greek particle, translated so 
that, sometimes denotes design ; and if in this sense it is 
to be here understood, the apostle's meaning is, that the 
influence of the Spirit in the believer is vouchsafed to 
counteract and frustrate his evil inclinations. This we 
prefer, as being most agreeable to the apostle's assurance, 
expressed in the previous verse." But this interpretation 
does not extricate him from his difficulties. It forces upon 
him a doctrine which, it is to be presumed, he is by no 
means prepared to adopt — that the believer has not a 
natural ability to commit sin. He has a will to sin, but 
the influence of the Spirit is vouchsafed to counteract and 
frustrate his sinful inclinations, so that he cannot do, or 

2* 



34 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



does not, the things that he would. Now, as there are but 
two kinds of ability concerned in this matter, according to 
the statements of Mr Duffield and his New Divinity asso- 
ciates, and the will is the moral ability, it clearly follows, 
that whatever prevents, when there is a will, must be a 
natural inability. This, then, is the position in which our 
interpreter places himself. The believer wills to perform 
the works of the flesh. All that he wants is the natural 
ability. The Spirit is given to " frustrate his sinful incli- 
nations," so that he fails to do what he wills to do, which 
is of course to destroy the natural ability respecting those 
things. It is to be hoped, for consistency's sake, that Mr. 
Duffield will not be found among those who hold that no 
Christian can, or ever could, or ever did, or ever will, live 
without sin. 

But he is not yet satisfied. " If it," the Greek particle, 
we suppose, " denotes merely the result eventually, no- 
thing more can be inferred from it, than that the influence 
of the Spirit, which generates a holy inclination, is coun- 
teracted by corrupt desires and affections, so that it does 
not issue in the accomplishment of that to which he was 
inclined, or which he willed." Nothing more can be in- 
ferred from it ! Who would wish to infer any more from 
it 1 The inference which Mr. Duffield affects to consider 
so harmless, is death to the doctrine that the want of the 
will is the only obstacle in the way of keeping the com- 
mandments. It states that " the influence of the Spirit 
generates a holy inclination," and yet the holy inclination 
" does not issue in the accomplishment of that to which 
he was inclined, or which he willed," and attributes the 
failure, not to want of will or inclination, as does the New 
School doctrine of ability, but to something which Mr. 
Duffield styles " corrupt desires and affections," and which 
the apostle styles " the lusts of the flesh," by which the 
holy inclination or will is frustrated. Does this comport 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 35 

with the doctrine that every man has a natural ability to 
keep the law — that all that he wants is the will or 
moral ability — that when he has the will, he has both 
the natural and moral ability ? Does not this inference 
plainly imply, that not only must there be the will or in- 
clination, but likewise, that those " corrupt desires and 
affections," which are represented as distinct from the 
will, and which defeat it, must be overcome by the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit ? The author professes to be in- 
different as to " which, if either, of the two constructions 
should be exclusively preferred," as neither view militates 
against the doctrine he has advanced. He may well be 
indifferent on this point, not because neither view mili- 
tates against his doctrine, but because they equally militate 
against it. His utmost efforts to wrest the text from his 
opponents, and bribe it to bear testimony in his favour, 
have been succeeded by the most fatal responses. 

Having disposed of this passage in so summary and 
masterly a style, he proceeds to that from Romans, and 
affirms that nothing can be inferred from it unfavourable 
to his views of human ability. Let us compare them. 
The view of ability which he advocates is, that man has 
naturally the ability to keep the law, and that nothing is 
wanted but the will. The apostle says, " For to will is 
present with me ; but how to perform that which is good, 
[ find not. For the good that I would, I do not ; but the 
evil which I would not, that I do." Can nothing be in- 
ferred from this language of the apostle unfavourable to 
the proposition with which it is collated ? It must be, then, 
because they so directly and positively contradict each 
other, that there is no room for inference in the case. But 
so far from finding this text in his way, he derives from it, 
also, " confirmation of the views" he has advanced. It is 
certainly worth while to inquire how. The process will 
no doubt be highly instructive to those who have not been 



36 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



fully initiated into the mysteries of New School criticism. 
" It is evident," he says, " that the apostle cannot here use 
the word ' will' to denote a simple volition ; for no one 
ever acts or does any thing without some volition. The 
word is sometimes used to denote the main and efficient, 
the leading and controlling purpose ; and in this sense we 
suppose the apostle used it in the context first quoted. 
His meaning is therefore very plain. If he does not 
voluntarily and deliberately purpose to do evil, but on the 
contrary, if it is his fixed and abiding, and studious pur- 
pose to do what the law of God requires, it shows that 
the moral being, the I, whose character was to be esti- 
mated by this, its leading feature, did fully approve of the 
law of God ; and that, therefore, of whatever deviations 
from it he was guilty, they were to be attributed to the 
influence of sin, which he personifies, and not to the deep 
and fixed principles of his renovated character. His will, 
in the main, was right, but it was resisted, counteracted, 
and ofttimes overpowered by various considerations, of 
which he did not cordially and deliberately approve, nor 
of that which they led him to do. Here again we derive 
a confirmation of the views advanced, from the very ob- 
jections urged against them." We will venture to ex- 
amine this triumphant reasoning. The author supposes 
the apostle to be speaking of his own experience, in this 
passage. This assumption it is not necessary to call in 
question in the present argument. According to his ex- 
planation, the word " will," denotes the main and efficient, 
the leading and controlling purpose ; and it was the fixed, 
abiding, and studious purpose of the apostle, to do what the 
law requires, which, according to the natural ability theory, 
is all that is necessary to secure its fulfilment. ; and that 
the moral being, the I, is to be estimated by this, its lead- 
ing feature. And yet the apostle did not perform what 
the law requires. "The deviations" of which he "was 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



37 



guilty," however, " are not to be attributed to a voluntary 
and deliberate purpose to do evil." " His will, in the 
main, was right." They are to be " attributed to the in- 
fluence of sin, which he personifies." " His will" to do 
right " was resisted, counteracted, and ofttimes over- 
powered by various considerations, of which he did not 
cordially and deliberately approve, nor of that which they 
led him to do." And this is not only consistent with the 
doctrine that the apostle had a natural ability to keep the 
law, and that nothing was necessary to secure obedience 
but the will, but also a confirmation of the doctrine ! Most 
admirable ! ! But while we may be almost mute with ad- 
miration, we can hardly avoid asking, Was the apostle 
destitute of the " will," while it was his fixed, abiding, 
studious, efficient, and controlling purpose to keep the 
law ? And what became of the natural ability, while the 
"will" — "the /" — the " moral being" — "the fixed pur- 
pose," &c, was engaged in the unequal and unsuccessful 
conflict with " the personified influence of sin," and the 
"various considerations" by " which it was resisted, coun- 
teracted, and overpowered?" 

There is a feature in Mr. Dufheld's explanation of this 
text which deserves to be more fully developed. It as- 
sumes a very modest and retiring aspect in this instance, 
but old acquaintance leads to a ready recognition. We 
have looked upon it before now. The apostle he sup- 
poses to be speaking of his own experience. The word 
" will" is sometimes used to denote the main and efficient, 
the leading and controlling purpose ; and in this sense he 
supposes the apostle used it. It appears, then, that the 
apostle was alternately under the influence of two pur- 
poses — one a purpose to do what the law requires, the 
other a purpose to do what the law forbids. This, ac- 
cording to the New School doctrine, was the character 
of the Apostle Paul. He had a natural ability to obey the 



38 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



law of God, or to disobey it. All that was necessary in 
either case was the will. He had a fixed, studious, abid- 
ing, leading, controlling purpose to obey, and this consti- 
tuted "the deep and fixed principles of his renovated 
character." But he had, at the same time, a secondary 
and inferior purpose to commit sin ; and the leading pur- 
pose frequently gave way to the inferior purpose ; so that 
when he was inclined to keep the law, he kept it, and 
when he was inclined to violate it, he violated it. He was 
inclined to violate the law so frequently, that he was in 
bondage to the inferior and sinful purpose ; and so strong 
and determined was his inclination to sin, that when the 
holy inclination, generated by the Spirit of God, the main 
and controlling purpose, conflicted with the inferior pur- 
pose, the inferior purpose overcame, and became of course 
the " controlling" purpose ; and, on retrospecting his 
course, he was led to exclaim, " O wretched man that I 
am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death !" 
This is shocking ! I would be afraid of being posted for a 
slanderer, if I were to give such an account of the reli- 
gious character of the Rev. George Dunield. 

The impossibility of conforming this text to the doc- 
trines of New Divinity is made more and more apparent, 
by each additional effort to that end. Mr. Hinton employs, 
substantially, the same interpretation with Mr. Dunield. 
He tells us that " These expressions represent his dispo- 
sition, or the habitually prevailing state of his heart, which 
dictated a holy and devoted conduct, and gave this main 
character to his life. He found, however, 4 another law 
in his members,' an inclination to sin, 1 warring against 
the law of his mind,' and the emotions produced in conse- 
quence of this were sometimes strong enough to prevent 
the fulfilment of his holy and devoted purposes." — Page 
2G4. Here, then, is a prevailing state of the heart, dic- 
tating holy and devoted conduct — producing holy and 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



39 



devoted purposes, and efforts to carry them into effect, 
and yet the good that is purposed is not executed. Why? 
Because depravity produces emotions strong enough to 
prevent their fulfilment. And all this is perfectly consist- 
ent with the doctrine that every man has a natural ability 
to do the good that is required of him, and is prevented 
only by a criminal unwillingness ! Indeed, the " whole 
passage appears" to Mr. Hinton " to be remote from the 
question of power." The fact that another is " strong 
enough" to overcome me, it seems, is no proof that I am 
not " strong enough" to overcome him. But there is an- 
other view of this subject. If depravity is sometimes 
strong enough, in the estimation of these writers, to over- 
come and defeat efforts to do good produced by holy pur- 
poses, which are dictated and sustained by holy prevalent 
dispositions, what must be the state of the case when the 
depraved emotions and inclinations are sustained by a 
settled and prevailing disposition to sin ? Mr. Hinton shall 
answer this question. He says, in the preceding page, 
" If the emotions excited should be always in harmony 
with the existing disposition, then there would be no possi- 
bility of an action in any degree contrary to the disposition 
itself" This is conclusive. It places the unregenerate 
man in this condition, that unless the Holy Spirit, or some 
other power, excite emotions at variance with what is 
known to be the settled disposition of every unregenerate 
man, there would be no possibility of any other than sinful 
action. 

Mr. Barnes also fails to explain this passage without 
flatly contradicting his theory. On the words, " but how 
to perform that which is good I find not," he remarks, " I 
do not find it in my power ; or I find strong obstacles, so 
that I fail of doing it." He adds, " The obstacles are not 
natural, but such as arise from long indulgence in sin ; the 
strong native propensity to evil." This a|*p ; ears to be 



40 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



designed to leave the impression that his doctrine of na- 
tural ability is not contradicted ; and we suppose it must 
appear very plain to Mr. B.'s readers, at least those who 
are capable of understanding such nice discriminations, 
that obstacles which arise from a " strong native pro- 
pensity" " are not natural" 

In perfect harmony with the inspired testimonies which 
we have cited, and equally at variance with the New School 
theory of ability, are those prayers for help and strength 
which are recorded in the Scriptures. The unsuccessful 
conflict, described in the seventh chapter to the Romans, 
leads to the affecting appeal, " O wretched man that I am, 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death." How 
absurd ! — yea, w r orse — how insulting to Jehovah, is this 
call for deliverance, if the petitioner possesses a natural 
ability to do all the good that is required of him, and is 
prevented wholly by a criminal unwillingness ! ! Who 
would be surprised if God should answer such a call, from 
the secret place of his thunder, in terms of blasting re- 
buke ? The apostle writes to the Ephesians : — " For this 
cause I bow my knees unto the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, &c, that he would grant you, accord- 
ing to the riches of his grace, to be strengthened with 
might, by his Spirit, in the inner man." For the Colos- 
sians, he prays that they might be " strengthened with all 
might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience 
and long-suffering with joyfulness." The Apostle Peter 
prays thus : " The God of all grace, &c, make you per- 
fect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." But why do the 
apostles pray to God that he would strengthen believers, 
if every man possesses a natural ability to do whatever is 
required of him ? 

To the same conclusion do those passages tend which 
speak of strength as actually communicated. " Like- 
wise," says Paul, " the Spirit helpeth our infirmities." 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



41 



Again : " And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for 
thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most 
gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in mine infirmities, 
that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Again : 
" Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling ; 
for it is God which worketh in you to will and to do of his 
good pleasure." The Psalmist says, " In the day when 
I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with 
strength in my soul." Why is this strength imparted, if 
all men are naturally able to do what is required of them? 

The same consequence results from the declarations 
which are given respecting the sufficiency of grace. "My 
grace is sufficient for thee ;" " I can do all things through 
Christ who strengthened me." Why these declarations 
of the sufficiency of grace, if men are able, without it, to do 
what God requires of them. 

If, then, the Scriptures assure us that the grace of God 
is absolutely necessary to enable us to do the will of God 
— if they inform us that the apostles prayed that grace 
might be imparted for that very purpose — if they inform 
us that for this very purpose grace is actually communi- 
cated — if they emphatically assure us of the sufficiency 
of grace for that purpose — and if they clearly state that 
the inability which grace is intended to remove is not un- 
willingness merely, but an inability which exists after the 
will is brought over to the side of obedience, and while it 
is making repeated and desperate efforts to keep the com- 
mandments — what stronger evidence can be imagined 
against the doctrine, that all men have a natural ability to 
do what is required, as indispensable to salvation? "What 
need we any further witnesses ?" 



42 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



CHAPTER III. 

ABILITY CONTINUED. 

Unscripttjral as is this doctrine, its advocates are 
elaborate in its defence. We proceed, therefore, to ex- 
amine the arguments by which they endeavour to sus- 
tain it. 

p Mr. Barnes distinguishes ability into kinds, and as- 
sumes that he has gained his point when he has shown 
that man must be supposed to possess some kind of ability, 
or ability in some sense. " It is certainly possible," he 
says, " that a man reading the word unable in the confes- 
sion, may have learned to suppose that it meant all kinds 
of inability" — Defence, p. 79. Again : " There are two 
kinds of inability ; one arising from the want of physical 
power, the other from a want of inclination or will." — 
p. 153. Again : " If Dr. Junkin charges me with error in 
this," that is, in holding the doctrine of natural ability to 
repent and believe, " he holds the contrary, that is, * that 
unregenerate men are not able to keep the commandments 
of God ; that there is no ability of any kind to yield obe- 
dience, &c.' " It is here assumed, evidently, that to deny 
that man has a natural ability, is to deny that he has any 
kind of ability ; and, of course, that to prove that he has a 
kind of ability, is to prove that he has a natural ability. 
In answering this argument we shall not object to the prac- 
tice of distinguishing ability into kinds. It is based on 
the common distribution of the faculties of our nature into 
physical or corporeal, intellectual, and moral. It is sup- 
posed that each class of faculties has its own peculiar 
energy. Hence metaphysicians speak of physical, intel- 
lectual, and moral power. From this reasonable classifi- 
cation the distinction of ability into natural and moral de- 
rives all its plausibility. But the latter distinction is very 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 43 

different from the former, and is wholly arbitrary, as will 
be shown hereafter. It is contrived for theological pur- 
poses. 

Is it not, however, grossly absurd to pretend that an 
individual has a natural ability to perform a particular ac- 
tion, or a certain series of actions, merely because he 
possesses a kind of power, while he may be destitute of 
other kinds, equally indispensable ? Does it not require all 
the kinds of power requisite to the performance of an ac- 
tion, to constitute the ability to perform it ? Besides, power 
may be divided into degrees as well as kinds ; and it takes 
all the kinds and all the degrees of power, necessary to 
the performance of an action, to constitute the ability in 
question. If there be absent any one of the kinds of power 
which may be requisite, or if there be a defect as to the 
degree of power, the ability to perform the action does not 
exist. To assert the existence of ability to perform a 
specific action, in the absence of one or more of the essen- 
tial constituents of that ability, is as absurd as to assert 
the existence of a whole in the absence of several of its 
component parts. 

Samson possessed power to sunder the green withs 
with which the Philistines bound him, and to carry off the 
ponderous gates of Gaza. Now, admitting that ability is 
distinguishable into kinds, the ability of Samson must have 
included all the kinds and degrees of ability, which the 
performances alluded to necessarily called into action. 
Had he been destitute of any one of the requisite kinds ; 
or, possessing all the kinds, had he been destitute of the 
requisite degree, he could not have burst the withs, he 
could not have upheaved the gates. It is not merely a 
kind of ability that is wanted, but the ability itself. The 
case is plain. I have all the kinds of ability that Samson 
had, namely, physical, intellectual, and moral, and yet I 
have not ability to perfornvfeats of strength equal to those 



44 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



which he performed. Why? Simply because I have not 
the degree of power which he had. Were I to publish 
that I am able to perform achievements equal to those re- 
corded of Samson, and when called upon to give evidence 
of it, reply, that I have a kind of ability, and all that I want 
is another kind, equally indispensable, would I not there- 
by render myself ridiculous ? Just as ridiculous do these 
sage theologians make themselves, when they assert that 
the sinner has a natural ability to repent and believe the 
gospel ; and is, therefore, under obligation to repent and 
believe, merely because he possesses a hind of ability, 
while he is yet destitute of another kind, which is es- 
sentially requisite. 

Take another illustration. An individual in distress 
solicits your charity. You have the disposition to relieve 
him, and you have all the intelligence that is necessary ; 
but, in searching your pockets, you find that you have no 
money. Now, although you have two of the kinds of power 
which are requisite, moral and intellectual, there is one 
kind which you have not, and the absence of that, renders 
you wholly unable. But suppose some one in company 
with you should insist on your giving money to the indi- 
vidual, or being stigmatized as unfeeling and penurious ; 
and affirm that if you had " no sort of ability" you would 
be excusable ; but having " some kind of ability," you 
are fully able, and under a moral obligation, to give him 
money, although you have not a single cent at your dis- 
posal, would you not laugh at the absurdity of his reason- 
ing 1 Equally absurd is the doctrine that the sinner is able 
to love God, because he has " a kind of ability," called 
natural, or any thing else, while he is destitute of another 
kind, without which no man ever did, or ever will, or ever 
can, love God, and which God gives to, and withholds 
from, whom he pleases. The cases are precisely parallel. 

It is also supposed, that a denial of the doctrine of a 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 45 

natural ability to serve God, is equivalent to the assertion 
that men are utterly unable to do what is required of them. 
Hence the advocates of that doctrine exhibit in its support, 
with great satisfaction and triumph, those scriptures and 
arguments which prove that God does not demand of us 
what we are absolutely incapable of performing. That 
great summary of law, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
strength, and with all thy mind," is brought forward to 
prove that man has the ability naturally to obey the divine 
law. The opposite doctrine, we are told, makes God a tyrant. 
That this and similar texts, and the reasonings founded on 
them, abundantly disprove the doctrine that man is wholly 
unable to love and obey God, is undeniable. But they do 
not prove that he has a natural ability to do these things. 
It is not the case, that denying the doctrine of a natural 
ability to obey God involves the consequence that we are 
totally unable to obey him. Methodism is equally opposed 
to the doctrine of the entire inability of man to do any thing 
toward his salvation, as held by Calvinists of the Old 
School, and to the doctrine of a natural ability to obey God, 
as held by those of the New School, and Pelagians gene- 
rally. These doctrines are equally distant from the truth. 
We hold that while no man has naturally the ability to 
repent and believe the gospel, the grace of God is vouch- 
safed to every man to enable him to take the steps neces- 
sary to his salvation. When, therefore, our New School 
brethren suppose that they have established the doctrine 
by these arguments, they are wholly mistaken. They 
have only proved man's ability, in opposition to the doc- 
trine of his entire and absolute inability. Whether that 
ability is natural or not, is a question which remains to be 
settled. They have not advanced a step toward the proof 
of it. The searguments they have borrowed from the theo- 
logy of Methodism ; and while they fail to establish their 



46 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



doctrine of natural ability, they can easily be turned with 
fatal effect against their doctrine of moral inability. 

Another fallacy resorted to, for the 'purpose of proving 
the doctrine in dispute, consists in confounding power with 
powers or faculties, and identifying the question — Does 
man possess naturally the ability to repent and believe the 
gospel ? with the question — Is he in possession of all the 
constitutional faculties of our nature 1 Accordingly, some 
of their most confident arguments are directed to the 
object of proving that man has not lost any of his con- 
stitutional faculties. Dr. Beecher, in his work entitled 
" Views in Theology," written in vindication of his 
orthodoxy, remarks, " I commence with the subject of free 
agency, or the natural ability of man, as the foundation of 
obligation and moral government." This natural ability 
he explains to be "the intellectual and moral faculties, 
which God has given to man commensurate with his re- 
quirements ;" — " the plenary powers of a free agent." — 
p. 67. His reasonings are based on this definition. 

He remarks, " That nothing has been subtracted by the 
fall from the powers of agency requisite to the possibility 
of obedience, is strongly evident from the fact that no one, 
by the most careful analysis of the mind, has ever been 
able to detect and name the fatal deficiency. The motive 
to make such an exculpatory discovery, and throw off 
hated obligation and feared punishment, has been power- 
ful as the terrors of eternity, and the effort as constant as 
the flow of ages, and urged with all that talent, and inge- 
nuity, and learning could apply, and the wisdom from be- 
neath inspire, to establish the excusable impotency of 
man ; and to this day the effort has proved abortive. To 
appearance, the powers of the mind, and the law of God, 
and the glorious gospel, and the providence of God, are, 
as they should be, to render obedience a reasonable ser- 
vice, and impenitence and unbelief without excuse ; and 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



47 



where, amid the constitutional powers of agency, the de- 
fect lies, has never been discovered ; what it is has never 
been told, or that there is any such defect proved." — 
P. 31. 

Mr. Dufheld, in his work on regeneration, says, " The 
terms ability and power may denote, either the effective 
force or energy, or the particular faculty or capacity for 
exerting that force." In explaining natural ability he 
adopts the latter sense ; he explains it to be " the con- 
stitutional capacities requisite to believe and repent." 
In this definition it is perceived at once that the words 
ability and faculties are used as synonymous, and that the 
" natural ability" is identified with the constitutional 
faculties of our nature. 

Mr. Barnes, in his reply to that part of the protest 
against his sermon which relates to the ability of sin- 
ners, says, " The design of these passages was to affirm 
that salvation was offered to all men — that they were un- 
der no compulsory means — no physical force, to ruin them 
— that they were not under a defect of any natural power of 
intellect, judgment, or conscience to do this duty — that the 
duty which God required had been measured by the na- 
ture of the human faculties — and that if he went beyond 
that limit it must be unjust." — P. 75. 

Although Mr. Hinton does not formally define ability to 
consist in the possession of constitutional faculties, he con- 
founds it with faculties, when it suits his argument. In 
attempting to prove that the Holy Spirit does not impart 
additional power in regeneration, he remarks, " Birth and 
creation, it will be admitted, do involve the production of 
new powers. But when these terms are applied to the 
conversion of a sinner , we are immediately met by the fact 
that the powers of moral action are already in existence, 
namely, his intelligent faculties. Here is no room there' 
fore for the production of new powers ; and hence, of ne- 



48 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



cessity, the analogy and the force of the metaphor are 
confined to the production of new action" — p. 227. 

A striking example of this fallacy is found in a recent 
English work, entitled " Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, 
Election, &c, by George Payne, LL. D." He attempts 
to refute the doctrine that man is indebted to supernatural 
influence for his ability to keep the law of God, and com- 
plains loudly, that neither the Rev. Richard Watson, in his 
Theological Institutes, nor Bishop Tomline, defines the 
term power. His " decided impression is, that neither they 
nor Arminians in general attach any definite meaning to 
the term. They write as if their conceptions were very 
loose and indefinite, and yet as if they did not suspect this 
to be the case." He tells his readers that " these are not 
the times when loose and ambiguous statements can be 
permitted to go unexamined and unsifted." " I can," says 
he, " conceive of two senses only, in which the term power 
can be used in this connection ; if there are more than 
two, I shall consider myself indebted to any individual 
who will point them out. The two senses of which only 
I am at present cognizant are those which have been more 
than once referred to, namely, disposition and physical 
capacity. When, therefore, Mr. Watson affirms that man 
has lost both his will and his power to obey God, the lan- 
guage is, to my apprehension, equivalent with the decla- 
ration that he has lost his disposition and physical capacity 
to obey God." What Mr. Payne means by physical ca- 
pacity, as distinguished from will or disposition, will be 
made manifest as he proceeds. " I now seek for informa- 
tion," he adds, " whether, in the judgment of the i\.rminian, 
Adam did lose his physical capacity to obey his Creator ? 
Should he reply in the negative, then I would further inquire, 
Since the loss was by hypothesis more than disposition, 
and yet was not physical power, what is that strange ter- 
Hum quid between will and physical power — partaking of 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



49 



the properties of neither, or rather, perhaps, being an un- 
natural mixture of both — which completes the amount of 
his loss ? Will any one attempt to explain it ? Is it ex- 
plicable 1 Can it even be conceived 1 Should the reply be 
in the affirmative, should it be said that he lost physical 
power, I would ask whether he lost the whole of his 
physical powers, or some of them only. Had the former 
been the case, that is, had he lost sensation, memory, judg- 
ment, volition, &c, he must have ceased to be a man; he 
must have sunk even below a brute. If it be said that he 
lost some of them only, I ask, which ? Was it the under- 
standing, the memory, the judgment, the conscience, &c? 
Experience proves they all remain. Degraded as man is, 
he has suffered no loss of any physical power essential to 
obedience ; for there is nothing which God commands 
him to do which he could not do if he would." From 
such reasoning Mr. Payne concludes that man has power 
to obey the gospel, without supernatural influence, and 
vauntingly remarks, with reference to his opponents, that 
" Ten thousand absurdities have been uttered on this sub- 
ject, by those who have theological words without theo- 
logical ideas, whose creed is a creed of symbols rather 
than things."— pp. 76, 77. 

It is evident from these passages, that those who deny 
the doctrine of natural ability to do what God requires as 
indispensable to salvation, are placed by its advocates in 
the attitude of denying that fallen man is in possession of 
all the constitutional faculties of his nature. It is affirmed 
again and again, in defence of this doctrine, that the moral 
ability, or regeneration, imparts no new faculty. It is 
true, they do not always abide by this definition. They 
do not always use the phrase, natural ability, in this sense. 
It is frequently used in the popular sense ; and on their 
dexterity in shifting from one sense to another depends 
the success of the contrivance. 

3 



50 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



But was ever philosophy, or common sense, more wan- 
tonly outraged than by confounding ability to perform a 
certain act, or series of acts, with constitutional powers or 
faculties ? May not the most active and efficient man in 
the country, in all the various departments of human en- 
terprise, be so reduced by sickness as to be utterly unable 
to rise from his bed, or even to speak audibly ? But has 
he lost a constitutional faculty ? Is it the business of the 
physician or the nurse to restore a constitutional faculty ? 
Has he not, in his disabled condition, all the powers or facul- 
ties he ever had? And yet, according to these philosophic 
theologians, he has a natural ability to perform these or any 
other acts that come within the compass of human ability, 
because he has all the faculties of a man. This boasted 
natural ability turns out, therefore, to be no ability at all. 

And now let us see if the moral ability, or disposition, 
will help the invalid out of his difficulty. He has the will. 
He desires to speak. He makes repeated and resolute 
efforts to speak and rise from his couch, plainly showing 
that there is no inability of will — that he possesses the 
moral as well as the physical ability, and yet he cannot. 
With all this parade of metaphysical learning and disc.ri 
mination, the true idea of ability is wholly overlooked. It 
is fairly excluded by the definitions of both kinds of ability. 
It does not reside in the natural ability. It does not reside 
in the moral ability, or disposition. It falls down, between 
them, into the safer custody of common sense and Methodism. 

Look, for a moment, at some of the consequences of this 
definition of ability ! If the possession of all the constitu- 
tional faculties of human nature, constitutes ability to per- 
form any given act which a human being may possibly 
perform, it will follow, inevitably, either that I have power 
to perform feats of strength equal to those for which Go- 
liath and Samson were celebrated, or that I am deficient 
in constitutional faculties. It will follow, either that an 



-STEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 51 

infant is able to do all that the most able man can do, or 
that it is destitute of one or more of the constitutional 
faculties of our nature. 

Again, let us try the application of this definition of 
ability to the purpose of laying the foundation of moral 
accountability, and vindicating the divine government in 
the punishment of the impenitent : for this is one of the 
important uses assigned it. The possession of the facul- 
ties of our nature is supposed to constitute a natural ability, 
and that is considered as the basis of moral obligation, and 
sufficient to justify Jehovah in the everlasting punishment 
of the impenitent and unbelieving. From these premises 
it is as clearly deducible that infants are naturally able to 
do all that may be required of full-grown men and women ; 
that they have a natural ability to repent and believe the 
gospel, and are therefore justly accountable for the per- 
formance of these exercises, and justly punishable, and 
actually liable to punishment, for the nonperformance of 
them. To deny that infants possess all the constitutional 
faculties of our nature would imply that these faculties 
may be acquired by growth or education, which would be 
the same as to deny that they are constitutional. 

We are now prepared to answer Mr. Payne's significant 
demand for the " tertium quid" which he so humorously 
describes. It is power itself. The very thing which he 
attempts to define, but entirely overlooks. Whatever may 
be his success on other occasions, he has, in this instance, 
signally failed to sustain his lofty pretensions to superior 
precision. His arguments have been directed to prove 
what every Arminian would cheerfully admit, and what, 
we presume, no one of any creed would deny ; so that he 
has dealt his giant blows on an imaginary foe. The 
" theological idea" which he attaches to the term power, is 
foreign to the subject under consideration ; and he has yet 
before him the task of proving that the sinner has power, 



52 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 

as the people generally understand the term, to repent and 
believe, without the assistance of grace. 

The advocates of the doctrine of natural ability fre- 
quently confound it with the doctrine of free agency. This 
is done by Dr. Beecher. He defines it, as we have seen, 
to consist in " the plenary powers of a free agent ;" and 
throughout his argument on this subject treats these two 
questions as identical. " I commence with the subject 
of free agency, or the natural ability of man, as the found- 
ation of obligation, <fcc," is the language with which he 
opens his defence. — p. 15. Again he says, " There is 
not a dispute about doctrine, at this time, in the Presby- 
terian Church, which does not originate in discrepant 
opinions respecting the created constitutional powers of 
man as a free agent, and the grounds of moral obligation 
and personal accountability." Again : " Nothing is appa- 
rent in the nature of the fall from which to infer necessa- 
rily the destruction of the constitutional powers of free 
agency in Adam or his posterity." — p. 29. We find 
another example of this error in a tract entitled " Man a 
Free Agent without the Aids of Divine Grace," 
which is considered one of the ablest arguments extant, 
against the Arminian views of ability. The opponents 
of the doctrine of natural ability are thus placed in the 
position of denying the doctrine of free agency, while its 
advocates avail themselves of the powerful and unanswer- 
able arguments in favour of the doctrine of free agency, 
and set them down as so much in favour of the doctrine 
of natural ability. And if the arguments which belong to 
one of these doctrines were equally applicable to both, 
they would acquire an easy triumph. But they are not. 
The doctrines are not the same. The arguments which 
apply to the one do not apply to the other. 

The question now to be settled is not whether man is a 
free agent, but whether man, who is unquestionably a free 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



53 



agent, is naturally able — able without grace to assist him, 
to perform certain prescribed exercises. All men are free 
agents, and yet some men can perform acts far beyond the 
utmost ability of others. Because the school-boy is a free 
agent, is he therefore able to do whatever his tutor or his 
parents can do 1 If it be essential to free agency to be 
naturally able to do whatever is possible to be done, God 
is the only free agent in the universe. 

It would indeed be a marvellous affair, if Calvinism and 
Methodism should so change ground, that the latter should 
deny the doctrine of free agency, and the former stand up 
in defence of it. But this has not been done. This is 
not the state of the controversy. Calvinism has denied it. 
Methodism never did. We have contended for it from the 
beginning, and borne no little reproach on that account. 
We have as long and as constantly opposed the Pelagian 
doctrine of natural ability. 

A little further explanation will lay the matter fairly 
open. Calvinists, pressed by the arguments of their op- 
ponents against the doctrine of the foreordination, and con- 
sequent necessity, of every event that comes to pass, have 
been compelled to admit that man is a free agent, in order 
to lay the basis of human accountability, and justify re- 
wards and punishments. The task has then devolved 
upon them of reconciling their doctrine of predestination 
with man's free agency. In this field they have had to 
labour with distressing, exhausting toil. They have con- 
trived, however, a theory, or perhaps a variety of theories, 
which, in their estimation, bring these tenets to an agree- 
ment. But, after all, their free agency is one which can 
do nothing but what was preordained from all eternity, and 
is brought about by the providence of God, working by a 
very complicate, but effective machinery of influence, ope- 
rating, however, as they say, in accordance with the laws 
of mind. 



54 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY, 



But when they have got through the task of reconciling 
the predestination of all events with man's free agency, 
the patient and assiduous employment of all their learning 
and ingenuity is demanded, in order to reconcile the 
election of a definite number of men to eternal life, to 
the exclusion of all the rest, and the particular and ex- 
clusive redemption, by Christ, of the elect, wdth the offers 
of salvation to all men, and the obligation of all men to 
repent and believe the gospel. For, admitting that all men 
are free agents, what chance for salvation have those for 
whose salvation God has made no provision, and whose 
exclusion from saving mercy he has decreed ? Why offer 
salvation to those for whom it is not intended, and who 
have not power to accept it? It is for the purpose of 
reconciling these doctrines, as we have shown, that the 
distinction of ability into natural and moral is resorted to ; 
and from this distinction, maintained for this purpose, arises 
the doctrine of the natural ability of all men to repent and 
believe. 

Shall we inquire into the nature of the free agency for 
which they contend ? It is defined, by the author of the 
tract, to consist " in the faculties of understanding, con- 
science, and will." He argues, " We know, therefore, 
that man did not lose his free agency in Adam, unless he 
ceased to be man ; for understanding, conscience, and will, 
which make him a free agent, are constituent parts of his 
nature, &c." Again : " The only question is, are these 
faculties, understanding, conscience, and will, produced by 
supernatural grace 1 Do they pertain to man, as man ; or 
are they supernatural appendages ?" But who, we ask, 
ever denied, or made it necessary to prove, such a free 
agency as this ? Who ever supposed such a free agency 
to be imparted by " supernatural grace ?" Were an Armi- 
nian to forget himself so far as to deny that man is a free 
agent, or assert that he is dependent for his free agency 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



55 



on the influence of grace, he would not mean that man is 
destitute of " understanding, conscience, and will," or that 
he has these faculties through grace ; but that he has not 
power to exercise these faculties otherwise than he does, or 
that he depends on grace for that power. And such a po- 
sition would be entirely beyond the reach of the arguments 
of the tract. It would be wholly different from that against 
which they are directed. They merely prove that man 
possesses all his constitutional faculties, without the assist- 
ance of grace. But why did not this writer prove that man 
is a free agent without grace, in the Arminian sense of 
the term ? Because Calvinism does not recognise man as 
a free agent in that sense. While it accords to him a 
free agency which consists merely in the possession of 
faculties, it teaches that every exercise of these faculties 
is predetermined and brought about by God. 

The ulterior design of this argument is to prove that 
free agency, without grace, involves ability to do, without 
grace, whatever is necessary to salvation. The w r riter 
says, " The power or faculty which chooses evil and 
which chooses good, is the same power differently used. 
There can be no sin in choosing evil unless there be power 
to choose good ; or what is the same thing in an account- 
able being, power to avoid choosing evil." Again : " But 
man's ability and free agency are coextensive : and if he 
is responsible so far, and so far only, as he has ability, 
then so far, and so far only, is he a free agent." But the 
amount of the ability, which this demonstration contem- 
plates, will be apparent, when his definition of power is 
taken into the account. He says, in a note, " The writer 
would acquaint the reader, that whenever he ascribes 
power or ability to sinful man to obey God, he speaks 
simply of the faculties which are here spoken of, as con- 
stituting him a free agent." We are thus seasonably cau- 
tioned against supposing that he ascribes to the sinner 



56 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 

power in the proper sense of the term — in the sense in 
which it is usually understood. He means by power, 
merely the possession of faculties. It is not necessary to 
accountability, on his scheme, that man should be able to 
exercise his faculties as is required of him, but merely 
that he possess the faculties themselves. We ask, in 
the language of Job, and with a somewhat similar feeling, 
" What doth this arguing reprove ?" It is doubtless in- 
tended to leave the impression, that man is a free agent, 
without grace, in the popular and proper sense of the term, 
and that free agency includes the power, strictly speaking, 
to do, without grace, whatever is necessary to salvation ; 
but between such a conclusion, and the arguments of the 
tract, there is obviously no logical connection whatever. 

But, apart from the sophistries of this writer, it may be 
both entertaining and profitable to inquire, if it is, in fact, 
essential to free agency to be able to comply with the 
terms of salvation. We think it is not. A being may be 
able to act otherwise than he does, in a great variety of 
instances, and yet be unable to pursue a certain course of 
action, necessary to the attainment of a certain end. As 
has already been said, it is not necessary to free agency, 
to be able to do whatever is possible to be done. It is no 
more necessary to free agency, in the abstract, to be able 
to repent of sin, and love God with all the heart, and our 
neighbour as ourselves, or perform any other specific ex- 
ercises, than it is to be able to fly, or breathe as freely in 
the water as in the open air. The range of a man's free- 
dom may be very much circumscribed without destroying 
his free agency. Imprison him, and he is still a free 
agent. Chain him to the floor of his prison, and he has 
still, to some extent, freedom of thought and action. So 
the fall may have greatly restricted our liberty ; it may 
have destroyed our freedom of will, in respect to many 
things, without destroying our free agency itself. The 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



57 



attribute may still remain, though its operations be con- 
fined within a narrow sphere. And this, so far as we un- 
derstand it, is the doctrine of Arminianism. It does not 
teach that the fall has destroyed man's power of acting, 
in % any instance, otherwise than he does act ; but of per- 
forming a certain class of actions. The language of our 
Church on the subject is, 4 4 The condition of man after the 
fall of Adam is such, that he cannot prepare himself, by 
his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling 
upon God; wherefore we have no powder to do good works, 
pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God 
by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and 
working with us when we have that good will." 

Whatever difficulties may attach to this theory, we cer- 
tainly shall not seek to relieve ourselves of them by adopt- 
ing that which is presented by modern Calvinism. For 
if the whole of man's power consists merely in the pos- 
session of constitutional faculties, and every exercise of 
these faculties was foreordained by God, and is brought 
about by his influence, as Calvinists hold, we should de- 
spair of being able to prove him a free agent, either with 
or without grace. 

The argument of our opponents frequently proceeds on 
the assumption, that to deny that fallen man possesses a 
natural ability to obey the gospel, involves the conse- 
quence, that he has " no natural power." The fallacy of 
this is glaring. To deny, without any qualification, that 
man has natural ability, would be absurd indeed. But 
this is not the question. We deny that he possesses a 
natural ability to perform those specific exercises which 
God requires, in order to his salvation. Every living 
man is supposed to have natural ability to do something, 
but that does not imply a natural ability to do every thing. 
Samson had natural ability when, shorn of his extraordi- 
nary strength, he went out as another man ; but that does 

3* 



S8 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



not prove that the strength by which he carried off the 
gates of Gaza was natural to him. Nor is it necessary 
for us to maintain that fallen man has not power, naturally, 
to do, in many instances, what may be required of him, 
in preference to what he actually does. Take the mur- 
derer, for instance, or the man who has defrauded the 
government, — we need not assume the ground, that grace 
w as necessary to enable these men to have acted differ- 
ently, in these respects, from what they are supposed to 
have done. And certainly the law of God required them 
to act differently. The law of God requires the right use 
of the power we possess naturally, as well as that imparted 
by divine influence. But a very partial conformity to the 
law in some instances, is a very different thing from the 
performance of whatever the law demands. To decline 
murder, or robbery, or adultery, is not sufficient to make 
a man a Christian. The question, therefore, returns un- 
settled, — Has man, without gracious influence assisting 
him, the power to do whatever is indispensable to his 
salvation ? 

It is also assumed that those scriptures which charge 
on sinners an unwillingness to come to Christ, prove that 
they possess naturally the ability which is necessary. 
These texts certainly prove what they inculcate, but they 
neither affirm nor imply any thing respecting the source of 
the power by which those who ivill to obey the claims of 
duty, carry their purposes into execution. And yet this 
is the point in dispute. They are perfectly consistent 
with the doctrine, that for the power to take the first, and 
each successive step, the sinner is indebted to divine in- 
fluence — a doctrine which, in other parts of the Scriptures, 
is positively asserted. We suppose that had the man with 
the withered hand refused to stretch it forth, he would 
have defeated the kind intentions of the Saviour. But 
does this fact prove that he had power to stretch it forth 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 59 

independently of the power of Christ ? Neither does the 
fact, that the unwillingness of sinners to come to Christ 
prevents their salvation, prove that they have power to 
come to Christ unaided by the Spirit. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ABILITY CONTINUED. 

The reader will perceive that the question at issue is 
not, whether man possesses one or more of the different 
kinds of ability, into which power may be distinguished ; 
or whether he is, without grace, wholly destitute of natu- 
ral power ; or whether he can, in any instance, act other- 
wise than he does, without divine influence ; or whether 
he possesses all the constitutional faculties of human na- 
ture ; or whether he is a free agent. Nor is it, whether 
he actually possesses the ability requisite to the observ- 
ance of the divine law; but whether, admitting that he 
possesses the requisite ability, does he possess it naturally 
and independently of the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
We think that we have shown unanswerably that he does 
not. 

But the arguments of our opponents are not all defen- 
sive. They have made resolute aggressions on the Ar- 
minian doctrine. It is argued, that, as no man can be 
responsible for the nonperformance of what is beyond his 
ability, — as total inability is incompatible with moral obli- 
gation, — to teach that grace is necessary to impart ability 
to keep the law of God, is to make grace necessary to 
accountability. This objection is pushed out to remoter 
consequences ; and with the view of overwhelming Ar- 
minianism with absurdities, we are told, that, according 
to our doctrine, man is not only made a responsible being 



60 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



by grace, but also becomes punishable by grace, and, of 
course, if damned, is damned by grace, so that the grace of 
the Arminian turns out to be a curse rather than a blessing 

It is not necessary, in answering this objection, to deny 
that man is responsible in proportion to his ability. In- 
deed the foundation of this objection has, in our estima- 
tion, already been swept away. It evidently assumes, that 
the doctrine that man has not power, without gracious aid, 
to do whatever is required of him, is equivalent to the as- 
sertion that he has no power whatever without grace — no 
natural ability. This does not follow. We might be able 
to act differently from what we do, without grace, and yet 
be unable to perform those exercises with which God has 
seen proper to connect our salvation. An inability to do 
one thing, may not imply an inability to do another. Had 
not God seen proper to require of man more than he has 
power naturally to perform, and to empower him to meet 
those requirements, by supernatural influence, he might 
still have constituted him a responsible being, by bringing 
down the exactions of his government to a level with his 
natural ability. The law of God requires, as we have 
already seen, that all the power we possess should be ap- 
propriately exerted, whether that power be natural or 
supernatural. So that grace may not be necessary to con- 
stitute man a responsible being, although it greatly affects 
the degree of his responsibility. He may be responsible, 
and yet not responsible for that which exceeds his ability. 

But admitting, for argument sake, that our theory does 
make man's accountability to depend wholly on power 
supernaturally imparted, the objection alleged against it, 
on this ground, may be shown to be wholly imaginary. 

That power and advantages affect obligations and re- 
sponsibilities cannot be denied. This principle is seen 
to operate on various orders of animated being. For in- 
stance, a man has a right to require service of the inferior 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



61 



animals. But he cannot justly require of his dog the 
services which he may justly require of his horse. The 
reason is obvious. He may, for the same reason, be 
chargeable with cruelty in exacting of one of his horses, 
the services he might with perfect, humanity require of 
another, on account of the difference between them in 
respect to swiftness or strength. It will be readily ad- 
mitted, that the responsibilities of man are very differ- 
ent from those of brutes. God, by conferring on him 
reason, has made him subject to laws and retributions, 
which are utterly inapplicable to them. 

And, dropping the comparison between men and inferior 
creatures, the responsibilities of men are found to vary, 
on this very principle. Here is an idiot ; has he the same 
responsibility with the man of sound mind 1 And among 
those in possession of reason there is a wide difference 
as to accountability. The man who has been denied the 
advantages of education, and is, moreover, doomed to 
poverty and sickness, differs widely in this respect from 
the man who possesses the advantages of property, and 
health, and learning. 

Now, what is that doctrine against which this objection 
is urged ? It is this, that God has seen fit, for the superior 
happiness of man, and his own glory, instead of bringing 
down the requirements of his law to the natural ability of 
fallen and depraved man, to require more of him than he 
is naturally able to perform, and to make up the deficiency 
of power by supernatural influence. That this influence, 
and the power it imparts, increase our responsibilities, 
and affect the retributive awards of divine justice, we not 
only admit, but freely and emphatically assert. But this 
is a most equitable and universal principle of government. 
The objection is therefore wholly baseless. 

But if the objector still insists upon it, let him be warned 
of the position in which he places himself. He must 



62 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



either deny that responsibility is graduated on this prin- 
ciple, and hold that God may justly require of a brute all 
that he requires of a man — of an idiot, all that he requires 
of one possessed of sound intelligence ; or that, as horses 
and idiots are not morally accountable, nor capable of sin- 
ning against him, nor liable to damnation, the bestowment 
of those qualifications which make the difference in re- 
sponsibility, and render liable to the awful punishments 
of hell, is a curse and not a blessing. To be consistent, 
he must deny that these superior qualifications are bless- 
ings, or swallow the absurdities which he attempts to force 
upon us, namely, that man is made a sinner by the divine 
blessing, is made punishable by the divine blessing, and 
is damned by the divine blessing. 

The principle of the objection is, that an acquisition, to 
be a blessing, or of grace, must involve no additional re- 
sponsibility. Its practical bearing is, that there would be 
no grace in saving a drowning man ; in opening the eyes 
of the blind ; in substituting the light and order of reason 
for the darkness and confusion of insanity ; or in sending 
the gospel to the heathen, unless it were ascertained that 
these acts would not impose increased responsibility. 

Thus we see that the rock of offence, which the ob- 
jector has raised against us, falls back upon himself, "and 
grinds him to powder." It would seem as though some 
theologists were willing to borrow arguments from infi- 
delity itself, for the purpose of discrediting Arminianism ; 
and are determined to destroy it, even if, for that purpose, 
they must undermine the whole fabric of Christianity. 

Another objection is, that, inasmuch as justice requires 
that power should be commensurate with responsibility, 
there is a contradiction in saying, that the power for the 
exercise of which we are responsible, is of grace. It is 
thus presented by Mr. Finney : " This giving the sinner 
power, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to obey God, is what 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



63 



the Arminians call a gracious ability, which terms are a 
manifest absurdity. What is grace 1 It is undeserved 
favour ; something to which we have no claim in justice ; 
that which may be withheld without injustice. If this is 
a true definition, it is plain that a gracious ability to do 
our duty is absurd. It is a dictate of reason, of conscience, 
of common sense, and of our natural sense of justice, that 
if God require of us the performance of any duty or act, 
he is bound in justice to give us power to obey ; that is, 
he must give us the faculties and strength to perform the 
act. But if justice require it, why call it a gracious 
ability 1 Natural ability to do our duty cannot be a gra- 
cious ability. To call it so is to confound grace and jus- 
tice as meaning the same thing." — Sermons, p. 25. 

This argument depends for its plausibility on the mean- 
ing which those who employ it choose to attach to the 
term grace. That it signifies favour is undeniable ; but 
this is not the only sense in which it is used. It also sig- 
nifies the influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart ; and 
we can hardly suppose that it did not occur to Mr. F., that 
this might be the sense in which Arminians use it in 
this connection. But the recognition of this fact would 
have spoiled his argument. It is a matter of indifference 
to us, so far as the doctrine under consideration is con- 
cerned, whether the spiritual influence, which we affirm 
to be necessary, be called grace or justice — whether the 
ability imparted be called gracious ability or equitable 
ability. The truth still remains, that to this influence 
man is indebted for his ability to obey the gospel. Thus 
easily, as we think, is this boastful argument destroyed ; 
it is a mere play upon terms. The communication of the 
requisite power may be both of grace and justice, without 
confounding the meaning of the terms. Whether the 
power is of grace, in the sense of favour or not, is a dis- 
tinct question. 



64 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



And even if the term grace be taken in the latter sense, 
there will be no contradiction in supposing that the power 
it imparts is, at the same time, of justice. A work may 
be commenced as a favour, strictly, which justice may re- 
quire to be carried out. The whole plan of salvation had 
its origin in grace, and grace will lead on to its consum- 
mation ; and yet it might not be consistent with justice to 
arrest it midway, repeal all its provisions, and suffer the 
wicked and the just to be blended in one common doom. 
This point is capable of varied and almost endless 
illustration. Dr. Fisk has justly said, "If a physician 
should cut off the limb of a poor man, to save his life, is 
he not bound in justice, after he has commenced the ope- 
ration, to take up the arteries, and save the man from dy- 
ing by the operation ?" And yet " the man on whom the 
surgeon operates may be poor and perverse," and the ope- 
ration undertaken solely as an act of grace. 

A writer in the Christian Spectator, in an elaborate 
article on the subject of human ability, objects to the Ar- 
minian theory, that it makes the power by which obe- 
dience is rendered to God, " not human, but divine power," 
and charges on it these consequences : — " The sinner loving 
God is God loving himself, and the sinner repenting of 
sin is God repenting of sin." It would not be paying a 
very high compliment to the intelligence of his readers to 
suppose them converted to his views, or their previous 
faith in them strengthened, by the argument by which he 
attempts to fasten these absurdities on Arminianism. It 
is vitiated throughout by the gross fallacy of confounding 
faculties or attributes, with the power or energy by which 
they are exerted. He writes, " Love to God, repentance 
for sin, faith in the Saviour, are and must be the sinner's 
own acts or exercises, that is, his own powers or faculties, 
exercised in these forms. The proximate powers in exer- 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



65 



cise, must be his own subjective mental powers, or the acts 
cannot be his own acts." 

Now there is no controversy as to whether man serves 
God with his own faculties or the attributes of the Deity. 
The question is, Does man possess the energy — the power 
strictly — to exercise these powers as the gospel requires, 
without the assistance of the Holy Spirit ? And yet this 
writer would charge us with consequences which presup- 
pose an assertion, that man depends on grace for the 
necessary constitutional faculties. 

But, apart from the meager and absurd philosophy of 
New Divinity, it may be supposed that the suggestion, that, 
according to our theory, man obeys God by divine, and 
not human power, contains a real difficulty. That the 
power in question is divine, we are not concerned to deny, 
and yet it is as certainly human. Whence, we ask, did 
Adam derive his physical power in creation 1 Was it not 
directly from God ? And was it less his own personal 
power because thus imparted ? Could not God have im- 
parted additional power to Adam at any subsequent period, 
and made it as much his power as that imparted in crea- 
tion ? If, then, he should see proper to impart, by gracious 
influences, additional strength to him, is there any more 
inconsistency in calling it human power, than there would 
have been if it had been imparted at first ? Surely not. 
And the power imparted to us by grace is as much ours 
as the power imparted to Adam in creation was his. Its 
exercise depends equally, in both cases, on human voli- 
tion. The experience of those who were immediately 
qualified by God to execute the pattern of the Jewish 
tabernacle, is illustrative of the point in hand. They were 
thus enabled to do what they were previously unable to 
do. But who will pretend that the power they thus ex- 
erted was not their power, and that the act of making the 
tabernacle was God's act, and not theirs ? On the princi- 



66 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



pie adopted by the objector, it might be insisted upon that 
the power with which Samson carried off the gates of 
Gaza was not Samson's, and that in truth he did not per- 
form that act. Who, that is familiar with his Bible, does 
not know that the power of the Christian is frequently 
called the power of God, to indicate its source and man's 
dependance, and to secure to God the praise due to him, 
while it is also spoken of as man's power, for the exercise 
of which he is held responsible 1 Now is there any more 
inconsistency in these views, than in those which declare 
every thing in the wide universe to be the property of 
God, and yet contemplate our possessions as ours, and 
subject to our volition and appropriation? 

It is also objected, that a denial of the doctrine that man 
possesses natural ability to serve God, makes the will or 
inclination to perform an act, essential to, and identical 
with, the power to perform it. 

This objection is evidently based on the supposition, 
that fallen man has, of himself, every thing that is neces- 
sary to his serving God, excepting the will or inclination. 
This notion we have shown to be utterly unfounded. We 
have adduced Scripture authority, proving that when the 
will or inclination is present, and manifesting itself in 
efforts to do what is right, those efforts may fail through 
depravity. But, although this objection does not lie against 
Arminianism, it is properly chargeable on those who hold 
the distinction of natural and moral ability. They not 
only make the will essential to power, in every instance, 
but also identical with it, and this is one of the objections 
which we have to that distinction. 

This argument against our theory is urged with great 
earnestness by Mr. Hinton, and in a form which may en- 
title it to particular consideration. It is managed with 
considerable adroitness, but a close inspection and analysis 
will expose its fallacy. Mr. H. adopts the term disposi- 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



67 



tion, in preference to will or inclination, and defines it thus : 
M TAe habitually prevalent state of the heart in any respect , 
we call the disposition of a man in that respect." He 
distinguishes it from inclination, w r hich, he says, "is not 
necessarily either habitual or prevailing : it may be nei- 
ther." He also distinguishes it from affections, which 
he considers " occasional, temporary, and subordinate states 
of feeling;" and also from will, which he conceives 
to mean " either a simple determination, or the faculty of 
determining according to our feelings." 

By adopting, and thus defining, the term disposition, in 
this argument, Mr. H. expects, we suppose, to gain seve- 
ral important points. In the first place, he makes indispo- 
sition to serve God, include the whole of human depravity ; 
so that if he can succeed in his attempt to prove that full 
power to serve God may be possessed in connection with 
that want of disposition to serve him, which constitutes 
depravity, it will follow of course, that depravity does not 
interfere with power. He will also secure the position, 
that the Holy Spirit's influences may be necessary to 
change the disposition or habitually prevalent state of the 
heart, and yet not necessary to give ability to keep the law 
of God. It is quite plain, that if he can carry these points, 
he will establish the doctrine which we are endeavouring 
to refute. 

Having, in this manner, prepared his way, he proposes 
the question, " Is our having a disposition toward any ac- 
tion essential to our having power to perform it ?" 

But, in tracing his argument, we find that he entirely 
forgets his definition, and uses the term " disposition" in 
the sense of inclination and will, and interchangeably with 
those terms. He remarks, in the process of his reason- 
ing, " Nothing is more common, and few things are more 
important, than the distinction between power and inclina- 
tion. You can, but you will not, is language almost in- 



68 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



cessantly used, and the basis of some very important trans- 
actions ; as when an idle fellow is sent to the treadmill, 
or an able but reluctant debtor to the prison." — p. 112. 
So that instead of proving that there is nothing in the 
habitually prevalent state of a sinner's heart, which affects 
his power of keeping the divine law, he merely proves, 
that inclination or will, or disposition in the sense of 
these terms, is not essential to power. But he had pre- 
viously informed his readers, that the terms will and in- 
clination are not synonymous with disposition, and do not 
represent the " habitually prevalent state of the heart 
so that he virtually abandons his project in the progress 
of the argument. 

Again, by the manner in which he proposes the ques- 
tion for argument, the point at issue is evaded. The 
question is not, whether will, or inclination, or disposition 
to perform an action, is essential to the power to perform 
it ; but whether disinclination, or a contrary disposition, 
may be so strong and intense, as to destroy the power. 
These questions, when examined, will appear widely dif- 
ferent. I may be able to move onward against a certain 
amount of resistance, but if that resistance be increased, 
I may thereby be rendered unable to proceed another step. 
But it is not, therefore, necessary to enable me to proceed, 
that the whole resisting force should be reversed in its 
direction, so as to impel me forward. It is not necessary 
to remove entirely the resistance, but merely to diminish 
it. Apply the illustration to the subject before us. Sup- 
pose a certain amount of disinclination, or indisposition, to 
disable a man to perform the act to which he is thus indis- 
posed ; it does not follow that he must have a positive dis- 
position to perform that act, to enable him to perform it. 
It may be sufficient that the strength of the contrary dis- 
position be diminished. 

That depravity, whatever it may consist in, does inter- 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



69 



fere with the power to live a strictly holy life, is not only 
the dictate of Scripture, but also of reason. 

To suppose the contrary, implies that it is as easy for 
the most abandoned profligate to resist temptations to vice, 
as it is for the most moral and religious — that it is as easy 
for the veriest miser to contribute a thousand pounds to a 
purely benevolent object, as it is for the most benevolent 
man — that the difficulty of becoming religious is not at all 
increased by habitual and persevering profligacy, a senti- 
ment at war with the universal judgment of men. And to 
this result Mr. H.'s theory has actually conducted him. 
" We are quite ready," he remarks, " to admit the fact, 
that a disposition toward an action seems to render the 
doing of it easy, and that a contrary disposition seems to 
render it difficult, sometimes even to impossibility. But 
it only seems to do so." — p. 115. It appears, then, that the 
whole religious world in particular, has been labouring 
under a delusion on this subject, which New Divinity has 
the honour to dispel. "We have been accustomed from 
our boyhood to hear, from the pulpits of different denomi- 
nations, as a motive to immediate repentance, that post- 
ponement and crime harden the heart, and render the 
exercises of repentance more difficult. But this argument 
must now be laid aside. Other reasons for instant atten- 
tion to the claims of the gospel may exist, but this is de- 
stroyed. It is discovered to be fallacious. No difficulty 
is thus created. It will be as easy for the debauchee to 
become a Christian, when he has grown hoary in crime, 
as it is before he enters on his polluted career. The in- 
spired writers, too, and even the Saviour himself, must 
come in for a share of this timely correction, and must 
now stand instructed, that those who " are accustomed to 
do evil" have no more difficulty in learning "to do well," 
than those who have yet to form all their habits ; and that 
§o far from the rich having any peculiar difficulty in be- 



70 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



coming Christians, it is just as easy for the wealthy and 
proud to enter the kingdom of God, as it is for those who 
are poor, and comparatively humble. 

But if disposition may interfere with power, will it not 
follow, that ability and disposition, inability and indispo- 
sition, are identical ? No ! Whether they are in fact 
identical or not, no such conclusion results from these 
premises. The objection assumes, that whatever causes 
inability to perform an action, is identical with inability to 
perform it, and that the facilities, caused by the removal 
of the impediment, are identical with the ability that re- 
sults. This, however, is not the case. Suppose a vehicle 
drawn by two spirited and powerful horses. The driver 
turns into a bye-road, and brings the wheels in contact 
with an obstacle. The horses are unable to go forward. 
But is the obstacle which causes the inability, in this case, 
identical with the inability 1 The driver finds it neces- 
sary to remove the obstruction. But is the facility, caused 
by its removal, to be identified with the ability of the 
horses to proceed 1 No one would imagine such a thing. 
In like manner, indisposition may cause inability, and 
disposition may cause ability, and yet these things be en- 
tirely distinct. 

We think this plausible objection fairly refuted, and yet 
it may be satisfactory to some of our readers to have ad- 
ditional light on the relation which will, inclination, and 
disposition actually sustain to power. 

If by the will we understand the power of volition — the 
" faculty of determining," it is clear enough, that it is es- 
sential to the power to perform voluntary actions ; unless 
we suppose a man able to perform such actions, in the 
absence of a faculty which is indispensable to their per- 
formance. 

If the term " will" be taken in the sense of simple volition, 
the will is essential to the ability to perform voluntary ac- 



XEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 71 

tions. Such is the constitution of the human mind, that the 
volition must necessarily precede the action. To affirm that 
a man has power to do what, in this sense, he does not 
will to do, would be as unphilosophieal as to affirm that 
he has power to talk without employing the organs of 
speech. So that when we say, a man has power to per- 
form a certain action, we include the idea that he has 
power to will its performance. 

But if the term be understood in the sense of inclina- 
tion, the case is altered. Inclination is not in all cases 
essential to power. There are, and must be, many ac- 
tions which we can perform, although we are disinclined 
to the performance of them. Were not this the case, there 
would be no reason in exhortations to sacrifice of feeling, 
or self-denial. It would be absurd to expect a man to act 
contrary to his inclination, and, of course, to exhort him 
to that effect. 

We go further. We say that indisposition does not 
always destroy the power to perforin the action against 
which its influence is directed, taking the word according 
to Mr. Hinton's definition, and construing it to include the 
whole of human depravity. Else it were utterly useless 
to require a man to act, in any instance, against his de- 
pravity. It would be absolutely necessary for some foreign 
power to remove the depravity, before man could possibly 
act, in any instance, in a contrary course. This would 
destroy the relevancy, and effect, of all exhortations ad- 
dressed to confessedly depraved beings, requiring them to 
change, in any respect, their line of conduct. 

And yet, there may be other actions, which require the 
disposition, and inclination, as essential to the power to 
perform them. Take, for instance, those strictly spiritual 
exercises which proceed from love to God. To say that 
a man can perform these with a contrary disposition, is 
equivalent to saying that he can perform, from a principle 



72 NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 

of enmity to God, the exercises which invariably proceed 
from supreme love to God. To such exercises the in- 
spired writers have reference, when they tell us that "the 
carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither in- 
deed can be," and that the natural man neither discerns, 
nor can discern, the things of the Spirit. To the ability 
requisite for these things, another state of mind is abso- 
lutely necessary. 

The practical bearing of these views, which, we believe, 
contain the philosophy of the Scriptures on the subject, is 
this, — although the unregenerate sinner cannot, in his 
present condition, do all that is required of him in order 
to salvation, there are some things which he can do, even 
against his inclination — against his depravity, the per- 
formance of which, with the blessing of God, has a ten- 
dency to undermine that depravity, and superinduce 
another state of mind. They are the " works meet for 
repentance" which God has made indispensable to pardon 
and regeneration. He can, for instance, go to the church 
instead of the theatre. He can give his attention to the 
ministry of the word. He can read his Bible. He can 
take first one step, and then another, in that preliminary 
process which leads on to the disposition, and inclination, 
and power, to do whatever God commands. 

With these explanations, we can easily dispose of Mr. 
H.'s plausible illustrations. Does he intimate that, ac- 
cording to our theory, the man who has " sufficient money 
to satisfy his creditors, but is fond of gaming," has "no 
disposition," and therefore no "power to pay his debts?" 
We reply, no such consequence results from it. He may 
be able to do all this, notwithstanding his indisposition. 
The law of the land proceeds on the supposition that this 
to the case. And yet there may be other things which he 
cannot do against his disposition. Hence the gospel not 
only requires those exercises for which the disposition is 



NEW DIVINITY ABILITY. 



73 



necessary, but also provides means by which the disposi- 
tion may be acquired. 

Mr. H. endeavours to fix on the notion that power may 
depend on disposition, the charge of absurdity, — " As, for 
instance," he says, " I am surrounded by several hundred 
places, and am not disposed to go to any of them. But 
have I, therefore, no power to go to any of them ? In that 
case I must be considered as fixed, literally like a rock, 
to my position, till I am disposed to move, with which 
disposition to move, it appears, my power of moving is 
identical." — p. 113. 

The answer to this is, that while disposition may be es- 
sential to power in some instances, it is not in every in- 
stance. Mr. H. observes a caution in the statement of his 
premises, which seems to indicate that he was fully aware 
of this distinction. He remarks, " On the contrary, the 
obvious fact is, that we have power to do many things, 
whether we are disposed to do them or not" But he is 
chargeable with the fallacy of arguing from the fact that 
we can do " many things" without the disposition, that 
we can do any thing possible to be done by us, without 
the disposition. The one is admitted, but not the other. 
He may be able to go to any one of the hundred places, 
notwithstanding he is not disposed, and yet, he may not be 
able to go to heaven, or do that which is necessary to take 
him there, without the disposition. 

But the most remarkable feature of Mr. H.'s argument 
is the manner in which he involves himself in the ab- 
surdity in which he attempts to involve his opponents. 
On the supposition, that disposition to go to any of these 
places is essential to the power, he argues, " In that case 
I must be considered as fixed, literally like a rock, to my 
position," &c. And yet he tells us, in the very next pa- 
ragraph, that, although disposition is not necessary to 
power, " Nothing certainly can be more obvious than that 

4 



74 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



a voluntary being will never act further than he feels a dis- 
position to do so." So that in attempting to chain his op- 
ponents, he has chained himself ; for, according to his 
own showing, whether a man can change his position or 
not, without a disposition, no voluntary agent ever will ; so 
that the man without the disposition must assuredly stay 
where he is. 

Is it objected that our doctrine represents grace as ne- 
cessary, not because man is wicked, but because he is 
weak ? We reply, that it contemplates grace as neces- 
sary, because man is both wicked and weak. Weakness 
may proceed from depravity, as well as from other causes, 
but it is weakness still, and there is no inconsistency in 
supposing that the plan of salvation has made provision 
for its remedy. 



CHAPTER V. 

DEPRAVITY. 

Having shown that the Scriptures are decidedly at 
variance with the doctrine of the natural ability of fallen 
man to obey God ; and having also ascertained the utter 
failure of the principal arguments relied on to sustain it, 
we shall proceed to examine the other constituent parts 
of the system, to which this doctrine leads by plain logical 
consequence. 

It is supposed, by some, that this controversy on the 
subject of ability, is wholly unimportant, — that if the ability 
of the sinner to do his duty is admitted, nothing is gained, 
or lost, by adopting either the one theory or the other, re- 
specting the source of that ability. This is a mistake. 
The doctrine of natural ability modifies extensively the 
system of theology which includes it, and introduces, in 
fact, " another gospel." 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



75 



This theory of ability, as it is usually stated, leads to the 
doctrine, that all depravity lies in the will — that it consists 
wholly in unwillingness. The process of deduction is 
easy. We are told that all have a natural ability to love 
and serve God, and that all which hinders our love and obe- 
dience to him is our want of will. Now it is that which 
hinders our love and obedience to God which constitutes 
our depravity. Our unwillingness, therefore, as it is the 
only hindrance to the love and service of God, constitutes 
our depravity, and the whole of our depravity. 

This consequence is not denied; but the view of human 
depravity which it presents, is frequently and confidently 
affirmed. Dr. Tyler, in a sermon on " Free Salvation," 
published in the second volume of the " National Preacher/' 
writes thus : " Why is it necessary that men should be 
born again ? Not because they are unable to do their duty, 
if they will ; but because they are unwilling to do it. It 
is their depravity which renders the supernatural change 
necessary. But their depravity is not their calamity merely, 
but their crime. It consists, as we have seen, in a perverse 
inclination ; in a voluntary and obstinate refusal to yield 
obedience to the reasonable commands of Jehovah. What 
the sinner needs, therefore, is to have this perverse incli- 
nation changed ; that is, to be made willing to do what God 
requires. The necessity for this change, therefore, sup- 
poses no obstacle in the way of his salvation, except his 
own unwillingness to do his duty." 

Dr. Tyler, we would remark, is an Old School writer. 
We have quoted from him merely to show, that this ten- 
dency of the doctrine of natural ability is recognised, and 
the consequence held. 

Dr. Lansing says, in his sermon on the Necessity of 
Regeneration, " Nothing more is necessary for God to do 
for you, than to make you willing ; and hence your volun- 
tary opposition to him is the only obstacle to your salva- 



76 



NEW DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 



tion." This doctrine is asserted by Mr. Barnes, in his 
answer to the protest against his sermon. He endeavours 
to prove that this is the doctrine of the Confession of 
Faith. He says, " In this passage the following things 
are thought worthy of observation :— 1. That here is an 
express and formal definition of what the framers of the 
constitution meant by inability. This is the object of the 
chapter, to explain the state of man since the fall, in refer- 
ence to obeying the law of God. 2. That they expressly 
affirm that the difficulty is in the will, having lost all ability 
of will. Nor do they mention any other difficulty or obstacle 
in the way of man's conversion, but what lies in the will. 
That is evidently implying that if the will were right, 
there were no other obstacle Indeed, President Edwards 
himself carried the doctrine of natural ability directly to 
this result. With respect to depravity he says, in his 
treatise on the will, " Now this doctrine supposes no other 
necessity of sinning than a moral necessity ; which, as 
has been shown, don't at all excuse sin ; and supposes no 
other inability to obey any command or perform any duty, 

3ven the most spiritual and exalted, but a moral inability." 
This moral inability he defines to consist " in the opposi- 

ion, or want of inclination." 

But the doctrine of natural ability leads to still more 
ultra and dangerous views of human depravity. It leads 
to the consequence that depravity consists solely in volun- 
tary exercises. Any other view of depravity is found to 
conflict with the doctrine of natural ability. Even disin- 
clination or unwillingness, may be so strong as to consti- 
tute a real inability to do, in some instances, that to which 
it is opposed. President Edwards justly remarks : — " I 
suppose that none will deny but that in some cases a pre- 
vious bias, or inclination, or the motive presented, may be 
so powerful that the act of the will may be constantly and 
indissolubly connected therewith. When motives or pre- 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 77 

vlous bias are very strong, all will allow that there is 
some difficulty in going against them. And if they were 
yet stronger, the difficulty will be greater : and therefore, 
if more were still added to their strength, to a certain de- 
gree, it would make the difficulty so great that it would be 
impossible to surmount it" Unwillingness, or disinclina- 
tion, constitutes the moral inability of New School Cal- 
vinism ; and whenever it constitutes a real inability, that 
inability is natural ; as much so as that arising from any 
other cause. It has its origin in the constitution of our 
nature. The doctrine, therefore, that depravity consists 
in unwillingness or disinclination to serve God, which 
may constitute a real inability, and which moreover may 
be hereditary and constitutional, is at variance with the 
doctrine of natural ability. Nor will it answer to make 
depravity consist in habit: for the tendency of vicious 
habit is to interfere with the ability to serve God. So the 
Scriptures represent : — " Can the Ethiopian change his 
skin, or the leopard his spots ! then may ye also do good, 
that are accustomed to do evil." The only wav, there- 
fore, of securing the doctrine of natural ability, is by lo- 
cating depravity in the action itself. Whether I have hit 
on the process of reasoning by which the disciples of Mew 
Divinity come to this conclusion or not, it is certain that 
to this conclusion many of them have come. They deny 
that depravity is constitutional and hereditary, or that it 
consists in a principle, or disposition, or propensity, or 
taste, or corruption of our nature ; or any thing which 
** lies back" of the will, or is anterior to our voluntary exer- 
cises, or is the cause of them, and maintain that it consists 
solely in the actions themselves. 

This view of depravity is strenuously advocated by Mr 
Duffield, in his work on regeneration. He thus states the 
different theories on the subject, at the commencement of 
his investigations : — " Whether depravity is to be found 



78 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



exclusively in the will, or equally in all the faculties— 
whether it has its origin in a modification of our essential 
nature — whether it is created in us, or derived by a natu- 
ral descent — whether it consists in acts or exercises, or 
in something back of them, which lays the foundation for 
them in the very nature of the essential soul — whether it 
is some deranged and inappropriate exercise of our moral 
powers, and to be referred to the character of the control- 
ling objects, or of the governing moral principle — are ques- 
tions that have been seriously agitated." The theory 
which he adopts is, that " it consists in acts and exer- 
cises," in " some deranged and inappropriate exer- 
cises." 

He says, " We cannot conceive of enmity against God 
consisting in constitution, or mere existence, abstract es- 
sence, or mere nature. It is in its very nature, really and 
formally the workings or the acts and exercises of a rational 
and feeling creature, so that when the apostles resolve all 
that is in the world, which is not of the Father, into lu st- 
ings, and represent these lustings to be in enmity with 
God, we are infallibly directed in making our estimate of 
human depravity, to have exclusive regard to the acts and 
exercises of the human soul." — p. 338. 

Again : " And the reason is, because practically we do 
not predicate depravity of the corporeal or even mental 
constitution of man, but of the actual exercise of those 
powers which are implied or requisite in the willing to do, 
or doing what the law prohibits, or refusing what it re- 
quires." — Ibid. 

Again : " And God being under no obligation, nor 
choosing in this world to vouchsafe the influence of his 
Holy Spirit, which is necessary to prevent from choosing 
what is wrong — there shall take place those acts of which 
alone we can legitimately and intelligently predicate moral 
depravity." —p. 379. 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



79 



" Charge not your impenitence on any constitutional 
depravity." — p. 344. 

" For it does not appear that Adam lost or acquired any 
physical property by his rebellion ; nor that his nature, 
consisting simply of his created substance and its consti- 
tutional properties, sustained any physical change by his 
sin. His voluntary exercises were sadly deranged, and 
became awfully depraved ; but that depravity formed no 
part of his substance, nor belonged to his constitutional pro- 
perties. It attached to his character as a moral agent. 
How then could he transmit by natural generation what 
did not inhere in his own constitution ?" — p. 284. 

" Must we believe that men are inclined in the same 
way to sin, and that therefore, because of an innate pro- 
pensity to sin — the foundation laid in the very nature — 
that nature apart from, and prior to, any of its moral actings, 
is sinful ? This is to make men sin by physical neces- 
sity."— p. 307. 

" His depravity consists in the misdirection and inap- 
propriate exercise of his faculties ; not in wrong faculties 
inherited. And many causes may operate to secure such 
a direction and exercise of his faculties, without inferring 
from false analogies, suggested by a false physiology, that 
it must be an operative principle in the very soul, apart from 
and anterior to its exercises." — p. 310. 

Mr. Finney, who has acquired great eminence in the 
ranks of New Divinity, comes forth as a bold and sturdy 
advocate of this doctrine. He says, in his sermon on to- 
tal depravity, " Some persons have spoken of depravity, 
and of the pollution of our nature, as if there were some 
moral depravity cleaving to, or incorporated with, the very 
substance of our being. Now this is to talk utter nonsense. 
If such a depravity were possible, it would not be moral, 
but physical depravity. It could not be a depravity 
for which we were blameworthy. It could not be a 



80 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



sinful depravity. It would be a disease, and not a 
crime. 1 ' 

"I do not mean by total depravity that there is the same 
disposition to sin belonging to the substance of body or 
mind that there is in a serpent to bite, or in a wolf to de- 
vour sheep. In other words, I do not mean that there is 
a constitutional appetite or craving for sin implanted in the 
substance of the body or the mind." 

" Moral depravity is a quality of voluntary action, not of 
substance. It does not belong to the constitution, but be- 
longs purely and exclusively to character." 

"It is not meant there is any thing in the constitution, 
or substance of body or mind, that is opposed to God." 

" It is not meant that there are appetites, or propensities, 
that are constitutional, which are enmity against God." 

" Total depravity does not consist in any principle of sin 
that is incorporated with our being." 

" By total depravity is not meant that any being is or 
can be sinful before he has exercised the powers of moral 
agency." 

" I do not mean that there is some constitutional de- 
pravity, which lies back, and is the cause of actual trans- 
gression." 

" By total depravity, I do not mean that there is any sin 
in human beings, or in any other beings separate from 
actual transgression." 

" It should be well understood, and always remembered, 
that the carnal mind, as used by the apostle, is not the 
mind itself, but is a voluntary action of the mind." 

" These discourses exhibit a very different view of total 
depravity, from that which regards depravity as physical 
or constitutional, or as belonging to the substance of the 
body or the mind. They exhibit all depravity as volun- 
tary, as consisting in voluntary transgression" 

" 0 the darkness, and confusion, and utter nonsense of 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 81 

that view of depravity which exhibits it as something lying 
back, and the cause of all transgression !" 

" From this subject you can see that the wicked con- 
duct of sinners is no proof that their nature is sinful. The 
universal sinfulness of men has been supposed to con- 
duct to the inevitable conclusion that the nature of man 
must be in itself sinful." 

u The sinner's hatred of God is not caused by any he- 
reditary or transmitted disposition to hate him. A dispo- 
sition to hate God is itself hatred. Disposition is an action 
of the mind, and not a part of the mind itself. It is there- 
fore absurd to talk of an hereditary or transmitted disposi- 
tion to love or hate God, or any thing else." 

Dr. Lansing, in his sermon on " The Inability of Sin- 
ners Voluntary," says, " We learn from our subject that 
all sin consists in the voluntary exercises of the sinning 
agent." 

And if Mr. Barnes does not hold or intend to teach this 
doctrine, he certainly gives it countenance in those decla- 
rations to which his opponents have taken exception : 
1. That " all sin consists in voluntary action." 2. "That 
infants have no moral character? By this latter assertion 
he evidently means, that until infants have performed 
voluntary accountable actions, they are neither holy nor 
depraved. Compare these assertions, and the result is, 
plainly, that all depravity consists in voluntary action. And 
in perfect accordance with this doctrine is his comment 
on the seventh verse of the eighth chapter of Romans : 
" Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." 
He says, " It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, 
or the will ; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is 
physically depraved, or opposed to God ; but it means that 
the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them su- 
preme attention, is hostility to God," The tendency of 

4* 



82 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

this comment is, evidently, to resolve all depravity into 
the voluntary action of the mind. 

This doctrine is amply exhibited in a work published 
several years since in New-York, entitled " Views in 
Theology." The author of it asserts that " the Scriptural 
doctrine of depravity has no reference whatever to the 
physical constitution ; it relates exclusively to the actions 
of man, and simply expresses the fact, that while unre- 
newed, he never exercises holiness." 

The great object at which this author aims, is, to prove 
that any other view of depravity than that which makes it 
to consist solely in voluntary exercises, involves the doc- 
trine of " physical depravity," and that those writers who 
have maintained the commonly received theory, are 
chargeable with maintaining the doctrine of physical de- 
pravity. His own views are further developed in the fol- 
lowing passage : — 

" There is nothing in the constitution of man on his 
coming into being, or at any subsequent period, which of 
itself — every thing else being thrown out of consideration 
— lays any foundation of a certainty what kind of actions 
lie will exercise when placed under a moral influence ; 
nothing from which it can be infallibly inferred that he 
will exercise sin instead of holiness, or holiness instead 
of sin ; nor which can even present any more probability 
of his assuming the one character than the other. 

" This results from his having precisely the same ca- 
pacity for exercising the one species of actions as the 
other. Possessing identically the same capacity for obe- 
dience as for transgression, can any one imagine, that 
by simply looking at his capacity, any certainty or proba- 
bility can be discerned of his exercising the one, rather 
than the other 1 Can a given capacity for sin constitute 
any certainty or probability that sin will be exercised, 
any more than precisely the same capacity for holiness 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 83 

forms a certainty or probability that holiness will be exer- 
cised ? 

" Or, to approach the point through a different avenue. 
No depravity, corruption, taint, nor any other defect what- 
ever of that nature, pertains to the constitution of man, 
rendering him physically incapable of acting in conformity 
to the divine will, or making his committing sin in any 
sense an infallible result. Nothing whatever exists in it, 
therefore, which must, by a necessity of its nature, prove 
a cause of sin : nothing then which of course operates to 
the production of sin ; nothing, therefore, which constitutes 
a tendency to sin ; nothing, then, in short, which forms any 
more certainty or probability that he will exercise that spe- 
cies of actions which is evil, than that which is morally 
excellent. 

" Nothing then pertains to the physical nature of man 
which, of itself, presents any certainty or probability in 
what manner he will act, when placed under a moral in- 
fluence. It has no tendency whatever one way or the 
other ; nothing partaking in any sense of depravity, cor- 
ruption, or guilt, or making any approximation toward 
them ; nothing which is in any sense offensive to God ; 
but, on the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to him : as 
free from odious defect, and as completely the object of 
his complacency as were the physical constitutions of the 
first pair when created — as are the natures of angels." — 
Part iii, p. 55. 

The author adds, " This is undoubtedly a very different 
doctrine from that which is ordinarily inculcated." It is. 
I thank God that he is right in this assertion. The fact, 
that such are the tendencies and doctrines of New School 
Calvinism, should arouse every Methodist, and every Old 
School Calvinist, to excited and vigilant jealousy over 
every thing that is vital and valuable in our common 
Christianity. 



84 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



CHAPTER VI. 

DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 

We shall not take up much time in endeavouring to 
refute the doctrine that depravity consists solely in un- 
willingness or disinclination. It may be effectually dis- 
posed of, by comparing it with those passages from the 
epistles to the Romans and Galatians, which have al- 
ready been quoted for other purposes. They settle the 
question summarily and decisively : — " For that which 
I do, I allow not ; for what I would that do I not ; but 
what I hate, that do I. If, then, I do that which I 
would not, I consent unto the law that it is good." " For 
to will is present with me ; but how to perform that which 
is good I find not." " For the good that I would I do not: 
but the evil which 1 would not, that I do. I find then a 
law that when I would do good, evil is present with me," 
Rom. vii. " For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and 
the Spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary the 
one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
would," Gal. v, 17. This language, so far from repre- 
senting that all depravity consists in unwillingness, de- 
clares the presence of a positive willingness — a willing- 
ness which leads to efforts to keep the law, and yet these 
efforts fail through depravity. The depravity, therefore, 
which causes the difficulty, whatever may be its specific 
nature, must be supposed to consist in something besides 
unwillingness ; unless we are prepared to admit the ab- 
surdity, that the only reason why men are unable to per- 
form that which they are willing and strive to perform, is, 
that they are unwilling and do not strive to perform it. 

But the doctrine that depravity consists wholly in volun- 
tary exercises, demands a more ample investigation ; not 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 85 

on account of its plausibility, but its most ruinous tenden- 
cies, theoretical and practical. 

It will be necessary, in the first place, to present the 
question at issue, free from all embarrassing associations. 
It is one of the acts of sophistry, so to involve truth and 
error in the same statement, that the one may disparage 
or derive plausibility from, the other ; that an assertion of 
the truth may seem to include an adoption of the error; and 
that a denial of the error may with some plausibility be 
construed into a denial of the truth. The question to be 
discussed is, whether depravity consists solely in volun- 
tary exercises or actual transgression, or in something be- 
sides, which is the source of actual transgression. But 
the advocates of the "voluntary exercise" theory have seen 
proper to caricature the opposite doctrine, and associate 
it with questions from which it is entirely distinct. Of 
the design of this course we express no judgment. The 
tendency of it is to make the impression, that to maintain 
the doctrine they oppose requires the adoption and main- 
tenance of whatever they have seen proper to associate 
with it. They write as though we must either adopt 
their theory, or hold thai depravity consists in " constitu- 
tion or mere existence, abstract essence or mere nature" — ■ 
" in some, constitution of simple nature or created being," 
— that it forms a part of man's " substance," — that it is 
" created" and "lodged," or " implanted," or " incorporated" 
in, or " infused," or " injected" into the " constitution," or 
" internal essence and structure of the soul," or in " the very- 
substance of the body or mind." We are told that " the 
mind is not saturated or soaked with enmity." 

Now the question which we are at present discussing 
respects solely the nature of depravity. Whether it is 
derived by propagation, or superinduced by volition as in 
the case of Adam, or created by God — whether it is ac- 
quired by infusion, injection, absorption, implantation, or 



86 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



lodgment — whether it is lodged in the essence of the soul, 
or attaches to it in some other way — or whether its seat 
is in the body or soul, are questions distinct and foreign 
from the point. Nor shall we feel ourselves under any 
obligation to prove that it consists in " created essence," 
&c. Nor shall we undertake to determine its meta-- 
physical nature, any further than instructed by the Scrip- 
tures. Nor do we care even to give it a name. 

The Scriptures just quoted against the doctrine, that 
depravity consists wholly in unwillingness, are equally 
at variance with the doctrine under consideration. They 
represent depravity as something which resists the con- 
victions and inclinations of the mind, and defeats its 
efforts. Is it affirmed, that this depravity consists solely 
in voluntary exercises ? The result, then, will be plainly 
this, that simple volitions, uncaused by any propensity, 
rise up and defeat exertions which are directed by the 
convictions of the understanding, and enforced by incli- 
nation, and that these mysterious volitions result in ac- 
tions, which the understanding condemns, and the incli- 
nation abhors — that the mind, without being prompted by 
any principle, propensity, disposition, or taste, rises up 
against its own convictions, inclinations, purposes, and 
volitions, and frustrates them, and puts forth volitions 
wholly at variance with itself. 

But do the terms, in which the apostle speaks directly 
of depravity, accord with the doctrine, that it consists 
solely in voluntary exercises ? The Scriptures do not 
deal in metaphysical propositions, but they are never- 
theless based on true philosophy, and revolt at every 
interpretation which assumes a false philosophy. Let 
us try the passages to which we have just now re- 
ferred. He styles it " the law of sin" — " the law of sin 
in my members" — " sin that dwelleth in me." The failure 
to do good, and the commission of sin^ are evidently attri- 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



87 



buted to the law of sin as their source. " I find then a 
law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me." 
" But I see another law in my members warring against 
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
law of sin which is in my members." " Now, if I do that 
I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwell- 
eth in me." But if depravity consists wholly in actual trans- 
gression, then actual transgression is its own cause, which 
would be absurd. Let us further try the apostle's reason- 
ing, on the supposition that depravity consists altogether 
in voluntary exercises. Will it not run thus ? — " Now if 
I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but volun- 
tary action that dwelleth in me." " I find then a law that 
when I would do good, evil voluntary exercises are present 
with me. For I delight in the law of God after the in- 
ward man. But I see other voluntary exercises in my 
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bring- 
ing me into captivity to the voluntary exercises which are 
in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall 
deliver me from these voluntary exercises ?" It is impossi- 
ble to interpret this passage in accordance with this theory 
of depravity, without outraging common sense. 

Human depravity is frequently styled " the flesh," and 
spoken of, under that designation, in such a way as to ex- 
clude the doctrine that it consists solely in voluntary ex- 
ercises. " For ' the flesh' lusteth against the Spirit, and 
the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the 
one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
would." Here " the flesh" or depravity, is represented 
as consisting, not in actions, but in something that acts. 
It maintains a warfare with the Spirit. It lusts against 
the Spirit. Actual transgression is denominated fulfilling 
the lusts of the flesh, in opposition to walking in the 
Spirit. There would be precisely the same authority for 
resolving the Spirit into voluntary exercises, as for resolv- 



88 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



ing the flesh into voluntary exercises. But what would 
be the result of an attempt to interpret this text according 
to the theory to which we object ? Mr. Dufheld, as we 
have seen, in his effort to reconcile it with the doctrine of 
natural ability, says, " The word here translated 4 would' 
denotes not only the choice, or purpose, but that choice or 
purpose, as influenced by the affections or feelings of de- 
sire." Again : " The Greek particle, translated so that, 
sometimes denotes design ; and if, in this sense, it is to be 
here understood, the aposle's meaning is, that the influ- 
ence of the Spirit in the believer is vouchsafed to counter- 
act and frustrate his sinful inclinations. This we prefer, 
as being most agreeable to the apostle's assurance ex- 
pressed in the previous verse. If it denotes merely the 
result eventually, nothing more can be inferred from it, 
than that the influence of the Spirit, which generates a 
holy inclination, is counteracted by corrupt desires and af- 
fections, so that it does not issue in the accomplishment 
of that to which he was inclined." The result of ail this 
explanation is as follows : I have a " choice or purpose" 
to do good ; that choice or purpose is influenced by my 
" affections or feelings of desire," or "a holy inclination ;" 
this " holy inclination" is generated by the Holy Spirit : 
and yet this " choice or purpose," prompted by " affec- 
tions or feelings of desire," or by " holy inclination" gene- 
rated by the Holy Spirit, is counteracted by mere volitions, 
originating with themselves, having no cause or foundation 
in my nature, or any thing " belonging" or " cleaving" to 
it. Surely these voluntary exercises must be powerful 
indeed, thus to spring forth, self-created, and overcome 
other voluntary exercises, which one would suppose to be 
equally powerful with themselves, and at the same time 
prompted by holy inclinations and the Holy Spirit. 

But it would be doing injustice to Mr. D. and our read- 
ers, to make the impression, that he considers that these 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 89 

depraved volitions are wholly uncaused. He remarks, 
" Wherever we discover uniform results — a series of cor- 
responding actions, all standing in the same relation to 
one specific substance, we insensibly assume the exist- 
ence of some unvarying cause." — p. 250. Again : "That 
there is some appropriate cause of depravity, all admit."— 
p. 249. 

He proceeds to assign the cause : — " Of the precise na- 
ture of this, it is obvious that we must be ignorant, as we 
are of all causes whatever. This is not in itself, how- 
ever, a sufficient reason for denying that there is, or may 
be, such a thing. When we see effects uniformly result- 
ing, we attribute them to the operation of some efficient 
agency. We begin with God himself, and apprehend his 
divine agency as the prime cause, and thence proceed, 
through all the different uniform phenomena, or results 
arising, which fall under our observation, apprehending 
some immediate efficient agency, which remains uniformly 
the same. This we call by various names ; sometimes a 
law, sometimes a constitution of God, sometimes a princi- 
ple: it is indeed of little consequence which." — Ibid. 

There is no danger of misapprehending this language. 
" The prime cause" of these " effects uniformly resulting," 
is " divine agency." But there must be an " immediate" 
cause ; and that is ' ; a constitution of God" Thus 2\Ir. D. 
denies that men are ' ; inclined" to sin by " an innate pro- 
pensity," for the purpose of attributing their vicious actions 
to " divine agency," operating by a divine " constitution." 

Leaving the reader to decide, for himself, where this 
theory locates the blame of depravity, we pass on to re- 
mark, that it only varies and increases the difficulty arising 
out of the text under consideration. It presents the great 
Author of good as striving, by his Holy Spirit, to prevent 
depraved exercises, and at the same time acting as the 
prime agent in causing them. For the honour of God, we 



90 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. * 

would prefer the supposition, unphilosophical as it is, that 
these mysterious and powerful volitions are wholly un- 
caused. 

Will it be said, that the term " flesh," as used in this 
text, has reference to the body and its appetites, and that 
the meaning is, that the Spirit, and the desires it origi- 
nates, maintain an unsuccessful attempt to do good, on ac- 
count of the opposition from the body ? That would be to 
assert the doctrine of physical depravity to some purpose 
— to locate depravity in the animal nature. 

But such an interpretation would be exploded by a pa- 
rallel passage : — " Now the works of the flesh are mani- 
fest, which are these : adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 
lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emu- 
lations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, mur- 
ders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." Many of 
the works of the flesh, as stated here, are evidently men- 
tal exercises ; plainly showing that the meaning of the 
term " flesh," when used as synonymous with the term 
depravity, is not to be restricted to the corporeal economy. 

This text also shows, that " the flesh" is something dis- 
tinct from mere voluntary action. It works, and these 
exercises are the " works of the flesh." The flesh and 
the works of the flesh are placed in opposition to the 
Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit. The principle of inter- 
pretation which would resolve the flesh into voluntary 
exercises would make a similar disposal of the Spirit. In 
either case the interpretation would be absurd, because a 
voluntary action is itself a work. We should have the 
works of the works and the fruits of the fruit. 

Again : the actual transgression of the law is denomi- 
nated walking after the flesh in opposition to walking after 
the Spirit. " There is therefore now no condemnation 
to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
flesh but after the Spirit." But if the depravity which the 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



91 



word " flesh" represents, consists in walking, the apostle's 
language is unintelligible. It must be acknowledged to 
consist in an operative principle, to which actual trans- 
gression is referred, as its source. 

Will it be pretended that the term " flesh" is used in 
these passages to denote our essential nature, including 
merely our original, constitutional faculties of body and 
mind, and not to any principle of depravity apart from 
them, and which may or may not adhere to them ? That 
the term is frequently so used is not denied. But to sup- 
pose this to be its meaning, in the instances under con- 
sideration, would be to encounter greater difBculties than 
those intended to be avoided. " The flesh," we are told, 
" lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the 
flesh." Walking after the flesh is condemned. And we 
are notified that " they that are in Christ have crucified 
the flesh with its affections and lusts," and that " they that 
are in the flesh cannot please God." But is there any 
such irreconcilable hostility between our original consti- 
tution and the Holy Spirit ? If He who created this con- 
stitution, and invested it with its original powers, approved 
of it, can it be at variance with his law, and invariably 
displeasing to him, for us to walk in accordance with that 
constitution? Must we " crucify," that is, do violence to 
our essential nature to secure the approbation of God ? 
May we not, with the strictest accuracy, inquire whether 
sin does not consist in acting contrary to the laws of our 
original, essential constitution? 

Whatever, then, may be the nature of human depravity, 
it evidently consists in something besides voluntary exer- 
cises. 

Is it not presented in this light by those passages 
which personify it and style it " the old man ?" " That 
ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old 
man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 



92 



NEW DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 



and be lenewed in the spirit of your mind," Eph. iv, 22. 
" Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin," Romans vi, 6. Here is a plain 
distinction between " the old man which is corrupt," and 
the " former conversation." To suppose that the old man 
signifies the former course of life, would be to make these 
expressions synonymous. The sense would then be, that 
ye put off concerning the former conversation, the former 
conversation. To the existence and life of the old man, 
actual transgression is evidently attributed, and the result 
of his being " crucified" is, that we do not " serve sin," 
that is, do not commit actual transgression. 

Again : the doctrine that all depravity consists in volun- 
tary exercises, is at variance with those scriptures which 
speak of depravity and holiness under the ideas of bondage 
and freedom. They constitute a numerous class. But 
what bondage to depravity can there be, if it consists alto- 
gether in voluntary exercises ? What greater freedom can 
a man have, at any time, than when he knows no con- 
straint but his own volitions ? 

It is also at variance with those inspired declarations 
which represent the Holy Spirit's influences as necessary 
to overcome and remove depravity. Any other means 
which suspend voluntary action will do the work as effec- 
tually. Let the most depraved man be put to sleep, and 
he is as free from depravity as the Saviour himself. This 
conclusion is as inevitable as it is absurd : unless we are 
required to believe that a man is engaged in voluntary and 
accountable action while he is asleep. And it would be a 
somewhat curious speculation to inquire, what would be- 
come of a man if he were to die in that condition, which is 
certainly a possible case. Would he go to heaven, or to 
hell 1 If to the latter place, there would be the phenome- 
non of a man going to hell without any depravity. 



NEW DIVINITY— — DEPRAVITY* 



93 



CHAPTER VII. 

DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 

The doctrine which we oppose, evidently leads to a 
most antiscriptural, absurd, and pernicious distinction be- 
tween the moral character of the actor and his actions, 
If depravity consists solely in voluntary action, we have 
only to contemplate man as distinct from his actions, and 
no depravity can be affirmed of him. Depravity belongs 
to his actions, not to his person, or constitution. His ac- 
tions may be depraved ; but it does not follow that he is 
depraved. This consequence is so contrary to Scripture 
and reason, that one would suppose it sufficient to con- 
demn the theory, in the estimate of all its advocates. But 
it is not. They have seen the consequence, and frequently 
asserted it. It is included in many of their statements of 
the doctrine. Mr. Duffield plainly asserts it, when he 
says, " We are infallibly directed, in making our estimate 
of human depravity, to have exclusive regard to the acts 
and exercises of the human soul." Here a distinction is 
made between the soul and its acts and exercises ; and it 
is affirmed that, in making an estimate of depravity, the 
soul is to be excluded from the account, and the regard 
confined to its actions. Again : he says, " There shall 
take place those acts, of which alone we can predicate 
moral depravity." In his chapter on " the original of hu- 
man depravity," he charges the advocates of the opposite 
doctrine with predicating depravity of " being," or " simple 
existence ;" and affects to prove that it cannot be affirmed 
of " being ;" and expresses his surprise " that it should be 
made a question, whether sin may be predicated of being, 
or simple existence." It would be silly enough, to be 
sure, to affirm depravity of simple, abstract being, for that 
would imply that all beings are depraved. But this his 



94 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



opponents had not done. They had not even started the 
question which excites his surprise. They had affirmed 
depravity of human beings, and this is obviously the doc- 
trine against which his objection is aimed. It is not to be 
wondered at, however, that he involves such a sentiment 
in the mists of ambiguity, by confounding a particular class 
of beings with being itself. 

Mr. Finney says, " From this subject you can see that 
the wicked conduct of sinners is no proof that their nature 
is sinful." The author of " Views in Theology" affirms it 
broadly, when he says, " No depravity, taint, corruption, 
nor any other defect whatever of that nature, pertains to 
the constitution of man." 

Mr. Barnes makes this distinction appear very con- 
spicuous in his comment on St. Paul's declaration, that 
" the carnal mind is enmity against God," &c, where he 
tells us that it does not mean " the mind itself, the intel- 
lect, or the will ; it does not suppose that the mind or soul 
is physically depraved, or opposed to God." That it "does 
not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his law, but 
the minding of those things is hostile to his law." 

It is not necessary to question the correctness of this 
criticism. The language of the apostle may signify " the 
minding of those things." But if he does not expressly 
predicate depravity and inability of the " mind itself," or 
" of man," in this place, he does in other places ; and what 
he here says, clearly implies the depravity of the " mind 
itself," &c. Can that mind or soul be otherwise than de- 
praved, which is constantly performing depraved actions ? 
Can it be otherwise than at enmity with God, when all 
its intelligent, voluntary exercises are at enmity with him ? 
But the effect of this comment is, obviously, to restrict, as 
a question of doctrine, the depravity and inability to the 
actions of the mind. It is adopted by New School writers, 
generally, to guard the doctrines of natural ability, and 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 95 

depravity, as consisting solely in action, to which the text 
is equally fatal, whether it expressly affirms, or merely 
implies, that the "mind itself" is carnal, and at enmity 
with God. 

We shall endeavour to make good our condemnation of 
this consequence, and the theory to which it belongs, by 
first bringing it in contact with the Scriptures. The 
apostle writes to the Philippians : — " For many walk, of 
whom I have told you often, and now tell you, even weep- 
ing, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ ; 
whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and 
whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things." 
Here depravity is predicated not only of minding earthly 
things, but of those who mind them — of the " mind itself" 
— the man — the being. The result of an attempt to con- 
form this text to the doctrine, that depravity belongs solely 
to action, would be strikingly ludicrous. Again : the 
apostle says to the Corinthians, " Are ye not carnal, and 
walk as men ?" How ridiculous would be the attempt to 
interpret this text on the theory which predicates de- 
pravity solely of action ! 

This theory is most unequivocally contradicted by the 
reasonings of the Saviour, on human actions and their 
causes : — " Beware of false prophets, which come to you 
in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather 
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good 
tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth 
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, 
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Where- 
fore by their fruits ye shall know them," Matt. vii. The 
purport of this reasoning is, plainly, that acts and exercises 
derive their moral quality from the moral qualities of the 
actor, and likewise furnish the criterion by which his 
moral principles are to be judged. Are the actions de- 



96 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



praved ? It follows that the source of them is depraved* 
Is the man depraved ? Then will his actions be depraved. 
What a glaring discrepancy there is between the oracles 
of Christ, and the speculations of these theorists, who, 
with the New Testament in their hands, and professing 
to be servants and ministers of Christ, tell us that " there 
is nothing in man which constitutes a tendency to sin" — 
" which forms any more certainty or probability that he 
will exercise that species of action which is evil, than that 
which is morally excellent" — and that " sinful actions do 
not imply a sinful nature." 

The Saviour furnishes a severe rebuke to this incon- 
sistency, in his reply to those who attributed his casting 
out devils to the agency of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. 
After showing the absurdity of their charge, he says, — 
" Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else 
make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt ; for the tree 
is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers ! how can 
ye, being evil, speak good things ? For out of the abun- 
dance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out 
of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things ; 
and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bring- 
eth forth evil things." 

Who does not perceive that the doctrine and distinction 
which we oppose, destroy the Saviour's maxim, " The 
tree is known by its fruits," and contradict all his reason- 
ings ? They make the evil quality pertain exclusively to 
the fruit. They are at variance with the whole tenor of 
Scripture, which constantly affirms depravity of man, and 
contemplates it as the source of his evil actions. 

Apply this distinction to the perpetrator of crime, in any 
of its varied forms, and while it predicates depravity of 
his actions, it leaves himself without condemnation. Take, 
for instance, the manufacturer and trafficker in ardent 
spirits as a drink who is fully apprized of all the mischief 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 97 

he is doing. His business may be pronounced immoral, 
but it does not follow that he is immoral or depraved. The 
immorality belongs exclusively to the business. This dis- 
tinction was actually so applied, and this doctrine main- 
tained, in the Pennsylvania Temperance Convention in the 
spring of 1835, by one of the authors referred to in this 
work, in the debate on the resolution asserting the im- 
morality of the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits as 
a drink. 

According to this doctrine we have only to contemplate 
the murderer apart from his actions, and we must pro- 
nounce him perfectly free from depravity. Let his volun- 
tary exercises be suspended by sleep, for instance, and 
this is undeniably the case. Let him die in this condi- 
tion, and he dies free from depravity, although the blood 
may yet reek on his murderous blade. Or let him wake 
from his sleep, and whether he has any depravity after he 
wakes, or not, will depend on his voluntarily performing 
depraved exercises, which he has a natural ability to de- 
cline. This is a specimen of the moral philosophy which 
grows out of New School theology. 

It has been objected to this theory, that it is at variance 
with the doctrine of total depravity, and its advocates have 
endeavoured to remove the objection. One thing, how- 
ever is certain, that it admits of no such thing as partial 
depravity. There must either be total depravity or none 
at all ; for as the depravity of a man consists solely in his 
actions, his present action must, at any given period of his 
life, constitute his present depravity. Whether it be total 
or partial, will depend on, whether the volition is partially 
or wholly at variance with the law which it transgresses. 
Now the volitions of the mind are successive, and no mat- 
ter how rapidly they may succeed each other, the mind 
puts forth but one volition at a time. Whether that voli- 
tion is partially in obedience to, and partially at variance 

5 



98 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



with, the law, will depend on the law itself. If the law 
partly enjoins, and partly forbids it, this will be the case. 
But such a supposition respecting the law of God would 
be absurd. It would make it grossly contradictory. But 
if the law is totally at variance with the unholy voli- 
tion, it must constitute total depravity. The moment 
there is the least variation from total depravity, it is to- 
tally absent. 

If it be objected to this reasoning, that one single totally 
depraved action does not constitute total depravity, we 
would ask how many such actions are necessary to con- 
stitute it ? 

Perhaps it will be said, that it is not every unholy voli- 
tion that constitutes total depravity. If there be some par- 
ticular volitions of which alone total depravity can be 
predicated, it will be necessary to know what they are, in 
order to determine whether an individual be totally de- 
praved or not, as his character in this respect will de- 
pend on his having performed or declined them. 

Take this theory of depravity then, along with the doc- 
trine of natural ability, from which it springs, and it will 
follow infallibly, that a man may change from total de- 
pravity to holiness, and from holiness to total depravity, 
twenty times a day, and as much oftener as he pleases. 

But the great and crowning objection is, that it denies 
human depravity altogether. It has been shown, by the 
authority of Scripture, that it consists in something in ?nan, 
to which sinful voluntary exercises are referred as their 
source ; and the popular and prevailing apprehensions of 
mankind are in accordance with the philosophy of Scrip- 
ture. Now, if depravity does not consist in some quality, 
principle, propensity, or disposition, belonging to the 
actor, which may be contemplated apart, from his actions, 
and which operates as the cause of his putting forth un- 
holy, instead of holy exercises, it will follow, inevitably, 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY, 



99 



that there is nothing in man which makes it probable that he 
will pursue one course of moral action rather than another. 
Suppose two men sleeping, or in a state of suspended ani- 
mation. According to this doctrine, there is nothing in 
either of these men, no matter what their previous cha- 
racter and conduct may have been, on which we are au- 
thorized to build the slightest calculation as to what course 
they will pursue when they are awake, or restored. This 
consequence, sufficient, one would suppose, to condemn 
any theory which could be shown to lead to it, or involve it, 
is not only fairly dedueible from the premises, but is actu- 
ally adopted, and made a part of the theory in which it 
originates. It is broadly asserted in the quotation with 
which we closed the fifth chapter. 

Let us proceed to test it by the common sense and uni- 
versal practice of mankind. Suppose one of these men 
to be a useful and unexceptionable minister of the gospel ; 
and the other a vile penitentiary convict, who has escaped, 
by united force and treachery, from his prison. One is 
now just as far from depravity as the other. And were 
this theory correct, we should do the convict an injury by 
withholding from him the confidence which we award to 
the minister. Why 1 Because it would be withheld on 
the supposition that there is something in him — something 
belonging to his mind — something apart from his actions- 
some disposition, propensity, or taste, which renders it 
highly probable, if not certain, that he will, if he has op- 
portunity, take improper liberties with the rights and pro- 
perty of others, when he begins to act again. 

But will the teachers of New Divinity undertake to per- 
suade the community that there is nothing in the thief 
which constitutes a tendency to thieving ? — nothing which 
forms any more certainty or probability that he will act 
dishonestly, than that he will act with the most scrupulous 
honesty \ — that it would be doing injustice to him, to deny 



100 NEW DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 

him the confidence we award to those whose integrity has 
never been questioned ? Do not men universally act on the 
opposite principle ? Are we not constantly selecting our 
society, and pronouncing our judgments, on the ground 
that men possess various moral principles, apart from, and 
anterior to, their acting, which lay the foundation of pro- 
bability that they will act honourably or dishonourably, 
virtuously or viciously, when placed under certain circum- 
stances ? Would the merchant as soon trust his merchan- 
dise to the noted swindler as to the man of tried honesty? 
This new-fashioned theory of depravity is a perfect out- 
rage on common sense and universal experience. It is a 
wholesale denial of human depravity, as it is generally 
understood. 

Will it be argued, that habit makes the difference in 
question ? — that one man has contracted habits of dis- 
honesty, and that this is the cause of his acting viciously? 
There can be no doubt that habit has a very powerful in- 
fluence on volition ; but this solution, if admitted, would 
be as fatal to the doctrine that all depravity consists in 
voluntary exercises, as it would to the doctrine of an 
hereditary and constitutional propensity. It places habit 
" back" of moral exercises, and assigns it as their cause. 
Besides, habit is something which affects the faculties 
- — the constitution of man. It is something which belongs 
to him, and abides with him, sleeping and waking. If, 
therefore, we resolve depravity into habit, we make it to 
consist in something in man, which is distinct from, and 
the cause of, depraved action. 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



101 



CHAPTER VHL 

DEPRAVITY CONTINUED. 

Were the Scriptures silent on the subject, a strong pre- 
sumption in favour of the doctrine of inherent and consti- 
tutional depravity would arise, from the acknowledged 
facts that the first moral exercises of every individual of 
our race are vicious — and that their actions continue to be 
vicious, until depravity is arrested in its course by the 
power of grace. How does it happen that the " children 
of men go astray from the womb, speaking lies ?" How 
shall we account for this universal transgression of the law 
of God, commencing with the first accountable act, with- 
out admitting an innate principle of depravity ? 

It is said, in reply, that there is no more difficulty in 
accounting for this universal wickedness, without suppos- 
ing an innate principle of depravity, than there is in ac- 
counting for the sinning of our first ancestors without it. 
But the cases are widely different Adam sinned once 
without it, under circumstances of powerful temptation, 
after having lived for some time in perfect obedience. 
Now all men sin constantly, and from the beginning. 
There is no obedience to God until regeneration takes 
place. The task then is not that of accounting for one 
single sinful volition without previous depravity — a task 
not without its difficulties — but for a long and unbroken 
series of volitions, all in a wrong direction, commencing 
with the individual's first accountable exercise : and all 
this in despite of powerful opposing influences, and the 
strongest motives to the contrary course. 

But strong as this argument is, we are not dependant 
upon it. The Scriptures, as we have seen, settle the 
question most decisively ; and we prefer to rest our con- 
victions on their decision. 



102 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

It is contended by the advocates of New Divinity, that, 
if depravity consists not merely in voluntary action — if it 
affects the constitution of the actor, it must be a faculty — 
an essential attribute — a part of our constitution, &c. The 
objection is presented in an endless variety of phraseology, 
all, however, conveying the same idea. 

That depravity does not consist solely in action, has, we 
think, been clearly shown. It is equally clear that it is 
not a faculty — an essential attribute of our nature — a part 
of our constitution. The true doctrine lies somewhere 
between these extreme points. 

But the doctrine which we have advanced does not lead 
to the consequence alleged. There is no necessity for 
adopting the voluntary exercise theory, in order to escape 
it. Depravity may be something which inheres in the 
soul, and constitutes a principle of action, without consti- 
tuting a faculty of the soul. This position may be illus- 
trated by a reference to bodily disease, on which the in- 
spired writers rely for their most striking illustrations of 
depravity. There is a remarkable analogy between them. 
But who will maintain that bodily disease consists solely 
in action — that the body itself is not diseased? To main- 
tain such a supposition, would be to present to our con- 
templation the phenomenon of a healthy body in constantly 
diseased action. Disease not only deranges the action 
of the bodily organs, but affects the organs themselves. 
The body itself is diseased ; and yet no one supposes that 
the disease is a faculty of the body — that it is a part 
of the bodily constitution. The body had all its parts and 
attributes previous to its becoming diseased. It has them 
all after the disease is removed. The difference between 
its past and present condition, is this : then, it was dis- 
eased, and was disqualified for vigorous action, or wholly 
disabled ; now T , it is sound, and capable of the appropriate 
and vigorous exertion of all its faculties. 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 



103 



So it is with depravity. It is something which inheres 
in our moral constitution, and causes a deranged action of 
its powers ; but it is not a faculty — it is not an essential 
attribute — it is not a part of the constitution. Remove it, 
and the soul has the same faculties and constituents it had 
before. The difference caused, is simply this : the soul 
is relieved of a bias, a propensity, which disqualified it for 
obedience to God, and held its powers in thraldom to 
vice. 

Again : there are bodily diseases which are called con- 
stitutional. They are supposed to be transmitted from 
parents to children, and yet no one pretends to consider 
them a part of the constitution. The objection depends 
for all its plausibility on the ambiguity of the term con- 
stitutional. Indeed, ambiguous terms are the weapons of 
New Divinity warfare. They constitute its heaviest artil- 
lery. That which is a part of the constitution is cer- 
tainly constitutional ; but it does not follow, that whatever 
is constitutional must therefore be a part of the consti- 
tution. 

But the overwhelming objection to our view of depravity 
is, that it teaches the doctrine of " physical depravity." 
Numerous statements of the doctrine are quoted, and 
commented upon, by different New School writers, and 
the conclusion is brandished with formidable menace, 
that " the doctrine taught is that of physical depravity." 
It is supposed that it is thus reduced to an absurdity. 
The term " physical" occurs with endless reiteration in 
the arguments of New Divinity, and seems to be relied on 
as possessing some magic influence, before which, opposi- 
tion is expected to cower. 

It is not characteristic of truth to be terrified by a word. 
We shall therefore venture to encounter this awful trisyl- 
lable. The term " physical" is ambiguous, and this is the 
secret of its importance. It is sometimes used as synony- 



104 NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

mous with material or corporeal, and in other instances to 
signify whatever belongs essentially to the constitution of 
our whole nature. The advocates of the theory of de- 
pravity which we oppose, make it represent every thing 
except voluntary action. They insist upon it, that de- 
pravity must consist solely in voluntary action, or it is 
physical. These are, with them, the only alternatives. 
Now it is plain, that whether we teach the doctrine of 
physical depravity or not, will depend on the definition of 
the term, which may be adopted. If we take it in the sense 
in which these controversialists use it, we must of course 
adopt their theory, or submit to be stigmatized as holding 
the doctrine of physical depravity. 

But, how is it that this phrase comes to be so revolt- 
ing 1 Why do we shrink from the charge of holding and 
teaching the doctrine of physical depravity 1 Some of the 
ancient philosophers held, that depravity resides altogether 
in the corporeal constitution — that matter is essentially 
and incurably corrupt, and that all the moral aberrations 
of the soul are to be attributed to its connection with mat- 
ter. Another theory of physical depravity, we are told, 
represents it as " an essential attribute of the soul" — " a 
created attribute of its substance, inhering in, and con- 
tributing to make up its nature, and constitute it what 
it is." 

Now these theories of depravity are justly condemned. 
We have not advanced either of them. If the term 
" physical depravity" be restricted to them, we have not 
approximated to the doctrine. But it has acquired, in the 
hands of New Divinity, a new signification. Yet, if we 
must bear the terrible odium inflicted upon us, we bear it 
in good company. We have shown that the doctrine thus 
stigmatized is the doctrine of the inspired writers ; and 
we are sure of this, that, if St. Paul were living, these 
modern theologists might assail him with the word "physi- 



NEW DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 105 

cal" until their organs of speech should fail, or their re- 
sources of ink become exhausted, and he would not move 
an inch from his position. 

But, taking the term " physical" in the sense of our op- 
ponents, we cannot see but that they are as deeply involved 
in the difficulty of teaching a physical depravity as our- 
selves. If every faculty of our constitution be physical, 
and, likewise, every inherent principle to which our ac- 
tions are referred as their cause, will not all our actions 
be physical ? It will not alter the case, that some of our 
actions are under the control of the will, and therefore 
voluntary ; for the will itself is a physical attribute. They 
may be called moral, but the designation w T ill serve only 
to distinguish one class of physical actions from another 
— that which is voluntary from that which is involun- 
tary. The truth is this : the charge of physical depravity, 
in the hands of these men, is a mere bugbear. It is re- 
torted upon them with the utmost ease. Moreover, we 
rind examples in which they assert the doctrine of "physi- 
cal depravity" in a sense in which we utterly reject it. 
Mr. Barnes says, in his note on Romans vii, 23, " The 
body is composed of many members ; and as the flesh is 
regarded as the source of sin, (verse 18,) the law of sin 
is said to be in the members, that is, in the body itself." 
This is physical depravity, unquestionably. The "source 
of sin," the " law of sin," is in " the body itself." To 
this frightful extremity is Mr. B. pushed, in his efforts to 
interpret the oracles of God in accordance with the doc- 
trine, that the " soul itself" is not depraved. 

These writers are chargeable with an inconsistency in 
the use of language, w r hich deserves a moment's notice. 
They are constantly writing about the " physical nature," 
the " physical constitution" of man. We are incessantly 
notified by them, that depravity does not belong to the 

physical constitution." But, if every thing which be- 

5* 



106 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 



longs in any way to man's constitution be physical, what 
other nature or constitution can he have ? They may as 
well write about human men and women, as about man's 
" physical nature," if he has no other nature. But, if the 
nature, or constitution of man, may be distinguished into 
physical and moral, as such phraseology implies, their 
objection to our doctrine of depravity is entirely obviated 
by our affirming it of the moral constitution. Mr. Duffield 
speaks of the " moral constitution," but with great incon- 
sistency. What he means, it would be dim" quit to deter- 
mine, unless he considers a voluntary act to be a consti- 
tution. 



CHAPTER IX. 

HOLINESS. 

It has been shown that the doctrine of the natural ability 
of fallen man to obey God leads to the doctrine that all 
depravity consists in voluntary action, and that this doc- 
trine is adopted and inculcated by the advocates of this 
system. It requires no argument to show that this view 
of depravity necessarily implies the doctrine that all holi- 
ness consists in voluntary exercises. 

This view of the nature of holiness they have likewise 
adopted. The attention of the reader is asked to a few 
citations in proof of this assertion. 

Mr. Finney, in his sermon on " Sinners bound to change 
their own hearts," denies that regeneration effects any 
change in the constitution, or implants a new principle or 
taste in the soul which may be characterized as holy. 
He says, — 

" All holiness in God, angels, or men, must be volun- 
tary, or it is not holiness. To call any thing that is a part 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 107 

of the mind or body, holy — to speak of a holy substance, 
unless it be in a figurative sense, is to talk nonsense. 
Holiness is virtue ; it is something that is praiseworthy ; 
it cannot therefore be a part of the created substance of 
body or mind, but must consist in voluntary obedience to 
the principles of eternal righteousness. " — p. 7. 

Again : — " For instance, when Adam was first created, 
and awoke into being, before he had obeyed or disobeyed 
his Maker, he could have had no moral character at all: 
he had exercised no affections, no desires, nor put forth 
any actions. In this state he was a complete moral agent, 
and in this respect in the image of his Maker, but as yet 
could have no moral character ; for moral character can- 
not be a subject of creation, but attaches to voluntary 
- action." 

Mr. Durlieid, speaking of the graces of the Spirit, says, 
" Now all these are voluntary acts and exercises of the 
human mind." 

" It is philosophy, based on a false physiology, which 
comes in and says, the Spirit secures the exercise of these 
graces by infusing grace, or by putting into the soul a 
principle of life, or by creating a disposition for holiness, 
which principle or disposition is the immediate cause of 
these holy exercises of mind and heart, technically called 
the graces of the Spirit." — p. 230. 

Again : — " Some vague and mystic notions are had 
about disposition and habit as the proper philosophical 
cause of holy exercises. This philosophical cause of holy 
acts and exercises is itself pronounced holy, as every 
cause, it is supposed, must possess the same quality or 
character with its effects ; and in the production, or com- 
munication, or lodgment, or creation of this causal some- 
thing, this disposition or habit in the human soul, by the 
Spirit of God, it is alleged consists regeneration. Power 
is thus given to the regenerate man to perform holy acts, 



108 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 



and thus the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit is 
resolved into a mere physical efficiency ! And all the 
passages of Scripture which speak of his power in this 
connection are explained by means of this philosophical 
invention." — p. 511. 

Again : — " But do not tell us that the Spirit introduces 
into the heart a vital principle or sense, a spiritual instinct 
or holy principle, to be the immediate cause and formal rea- 
son of holy acts, laid by creative power in the nature of 
the soul." — p. 226. 

And in another place he says, " But we may know and 
trace the immediate effects of his (the Spirit's) agency, 
inasmuch as they all lie in our voluntary acts and exercises, 
of which we are distinctly conscious." — p. 439. 

He meets with a difficulty in the alleged holiness of 
Jesus Christ while in his infant state, and concludes that 
the holiness which characterized him at that time, must 
have been of a different kind from that which he after- 
ward possessed. 

" If holiness is attributed to that nature in its unborn 
and embryo state, we certainly cannot suppose that it is 
in the same sense in which it was after its growth into 
youth and manhood, or else we must suppose that holi- 
ness as a personal characteristic consists in something 
irrespective of the acts and exercises of a moral being. 
For the holiness of a being, with its powers developed, 
and actively excited, must be very different from that of 
one yet destitute of such powers." 

The holiness which Mr. D. attributes to Jesus Christ 
in his " embryo state," in order to escape the alternative 
of admitting that " holiness is a personal characteristic," 
and consists in something which may exist antecedent to 
the voluntary " acts and exercises of a moral being," is 
such as is attributed to inanimate things — for instance, to 
the vessels and apartments of the temple. These were 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 109 

holy in the sense of being " set apart as permanently and 
exclusively appropriate to God. In this sense the yet un- 
conscious nature of Christ may be denominated holy." — 
p. 353. 

On page five hundred and eighteen, he grants that 
" holy exercises" must be referred to some cause, but de- 
nies that the cause is to be found " in the soul itself," or 
that it is " some disposition, or habit, or causal something 
in the very being." He ascribes all the causation to ex- 
terior influences — to the " Holy Spirit" operating on u our 
constitutional susceptibilities by means of the truths and 
facts of Scripture," the holy exercises taking their charac- 
ter of holiness, not from any internal principle of holiness 
in the actor, but from the character of the "objects excit- 
ing and eliciting them." 

He argues that the doctrine of an inherent principle of 
holiness in the soul, operating as the cause of holy exer- 
cises, " robs the Spirit of his glory," and obscures ' ; his 
immediate influence." " Shall we," says he, " thrust the 
Spirit back, lose sight of his grace, and attribute to him 
the mere exercise of creative power in this marvellous 
work of converting and sanctifying the soul ? Shall we 
give glory to the renovated man, and inflate him with 
pride, by leading him to believe that a certain act of God 
has lodged in him a cause of holy exercises V — pp. 229-231 , 

It is not our intention to argue at length the falsity of 
this doctrine. Our main object in bringing it into notice 
is to show that it is a part of the system to which we im- 
pute it. Besides, if we have succeeded in refuting the 
premises from which it is deduced, it falls to the ground 
as a matter of course. Nevertheless, we can scarcely 
resist the temptation to discredit it, by adverting to some 
of the contradictions in which it involves its advocates. 

Mr. D., as we have seen, contends that holiness does 
not consist in a " disposition" or il principle" in the soul, 



110 NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 

operating as " the cause of holy exercises," but in holy 
exercises themselves, which are caused solely by influ- 
ences external to the actor. He tells us, p. 516, "That 
the graces of the Spirit are not created causes per se, but 
habitual voluntary exercises induced by his efficacious in- 
fluence through the truths and facts of revelation." But 
in the very same paragraph he exalts these " voluntary 
exercises" into " affections" and " principles of action," 
and ascribes to these " affections" and " principles of ac- 
tion," the causal influence, the existence of w T hich he has 
taken so much pains to disprove. " These," says he, 
" are all manifestly different affections, which depend ori- 
ginally on our natural and constitutional susceptibilities, 
and as excited and elicited by the Spirit's exhibition of 
the objects and truths appropriate to this end, assume an 
impulsive influence, and secure those acts and exercises which 
ice call holy." And at the conclusion of the paragraph he 
says, " Love, repentance, faith, hope, and fear, are, in their 
first rise, affections, excited and elicited by appropriate 
objects, and becoming habitual, they assume such a per- 
manent influence on conduct and character, as to be de- 
nominated the principles of Christian action." 

Here, then, we are instructed that these " holy acts and 
exercises," which have no cause in the soul itself, are 
" affections" and " principles of action," which " assume 
an impulsive influence, and secure those acts and exercises 
which we call holy" — that is, if the language used has 
any meaning, the holy acts and exercises which have no 
cause in the soul " assume an impulsive influence," be- 
come principles of action, and cause, or in other words, 
" secure" themselves. 

Let it be observed, that the question is not how holiness 
is produced by its great Author, whether by " creation," 
or " infusion," or " implantation," or by " exciting and 
eliciting" it by the exhibition of truth ; but, what is its na- 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. Ill 

ture when produced. Does it consist solely in "voluntary 
exercises" of the natural faculties, or does it include 
principles of action in the soul of the holy being, to which 
these voluntary exercises may be referred, as a real and 
indispensable, though secondary cause ? Mr. D. has ob- 
viously contradicted himself by first denying the existence 
of a cause of holy actions in the soul, and affirming that 
holiness consists wholly in voluntary exercises, and then 
attributing holy exercises to affections and principles of 
Christian action "which assume an impulsive influence, and 
secure those acts and exercises which we call holy" unless 
he really intended to affirm the absurdity that the holy 
exercises cause themselves. 

But it becomes us not to rejoice too soon, as though we 
had taken great spoil. It is not an easy matter to hold 
these slippery logicians when we have caught them. Al- 
though our author finds it convenient, for some reason, to 
refer good actions to affections and principles, as their 
cause, we are not to suppose that he intends to abide by 
this doctrine. He has already defined affections to be 
nothing more than voluntary acts and exercises, and he 
proceeds to give a similar explanation of the term "princi- 
ple." He says, in the succeeding paragraph, "The intel- 
ligent reader will perceive at once in what sense we 
understand the word principle, — not as designating ' some- 
thing' laid in the very structure of the being, nor a super- 
added quality of the soul, nor a specific cause of holy exer- 
cises, lodged in the heart by the creative power of God, 
anterior to such exercises ; but the determining or resru- 
lating influence of any particular species of feeling, as 
continuously or frequently and readily excited and elicited 
by the presentation of some object or truth, appropriately 
operating on our constitutional susceptibilities." 

We are here notified that he does not mean by the word 
principle " a specific cause of holy exercises." What, 



112 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 



then, does he mean ? He means " the determining or 
regulating influences of any particular species of feeling." 
But again we are in difficulties. We must look upon this 
influence of feeling, or the feeling to which the influence 
belongs, which he identifies with principle, either as a 
cause of voluntary action, and therefore distinct from 
voluntary action, or as a voluntary action merely. If it 
be viewed in the former light, he has fairly entitled him- 
self to the imputation of having uttered a gross contradic- 
tion. If in the latter, we beg him to accept our gratula- 
tions for the sagacity by which he made the important 
discovery, that all voluntary exercises are caused by volun- 
tary exercises, and that some of them, at least, must cause 
themselves. 

But why does he pursue this course ? Why maintain 
that holiness consists altogether in voluntary exercises, 
and then attribute these holy exercises to holy affections 
and principles as their cause, and then again define affec- 
tions and principles to be nothing more than voluntary 
exercises ? Because, while the theory of divinity which 
he and his coadjutors have adopted, requires of them that 
they maintain the first position, common sense, the philo- 
sophy, the language, the laws, the jurisprudence, of all 
civilized communities, attribute virtuous or vicious actions 
to virtuous or vicious innate principles as their source ; 
and they are sometimes, in the course of their doctrinal 
discussions, placed in such positions that they must con- 
form to this universal judgment, or appear obviously and 
undisguisedly arrayed against it. To avoid this incon- 
venience, they adopt the language which conveys the 
popular sentiment, and then interpret, so as to harmonize 
it with their theory. This is the course they pursue in 
arguing out their views of the nature of depravity, as well 
as of the nature of holiness. They are often compelled 
to contradict themselves by using language which implies 



NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 113 

the very opposite of that which they are endeavouring to 
maintain. Affections, dispositions, and principles, are 
spoken of as the sources of voluntary action. But the 
reader need not misapprehend them, for they are careful 
to redeem themselves by resolving all affections, dispo- 
sitions, and principles of moral action into voluntary ex- 
ercises. 

We will here cite an example of the manner in which 
the word " disposition" is explained, that our readers 
may be on their guard when it is used in their discourses 
or writings on this subject: — "It is philosophy " says Mr. 
D., " that talks of some peculiar adaptation of created 
nature, that is the specific cause of those acts and exer- 
cises which, as they are strung together in a series, or 
become habitual, we denominate disposition" — p. 458. 

Again : " We use it commonly to denote any particular 
class of acts and exercises toward given objects as they 
operate on our constitutional capacities and susceptibilities, 
and not as efficient causes per se, lodged in the structure 
of the soul, or superadded to its properties." — Ibid. 

Let it be remembered, then, when they refer actions to 
" dispositions," as they often do, that they mean nothing 
more by " dispositions" than " acts and exercises as they 
are strung together in a series," or " any particular class 
of acts and exercises." They have in some instances re- 
solved the " heart" itself into voluntary action. 

Another advantage is gained by this mode of operation. 
When their orthodoxy is called in question, they can 
readily adjust themselves to the measure of opposite 
standards. They can agree with one side or the other, 
as the emergency requires ; and by bringing their mental 
juggling to bear on a well selected vocabulary of ambigu- 
ous terms, they can undertake to convince an Old School 
Calvinist, in one hour, that there are but shades of differ- 
ence in their doctrinal views, and then turn around, and in 



114 NEW DIVINITY HOLINESS. 

the next hour, hope to convince the Methodist that they 
hold his doctrines precisely. 

We will leave it to our readers to estimate the services 
rendered to literature and philosophy, by a theological 
system which is compelled, for its own support, to con- 
found voluntary acts of the mind with principles of action. 

There is one objection urged against the Scriptural 
view of the nature of holiness on which we propose to 
bestow a moment's attention. It is urged with equal 
plausibility against the Scriptural doctrines of the nature 
of regeneration and depravity. It is, that a constitutional 
change, by which the regenerate man is supposed to have 
communicated to him a new principle of action, would 
destroy his identity. 

This objection is based on the assumption that whatever 
is constitutional must be an essential part of the constitu- 
tion. If this be the case, there can be no such thing as 
constitutional diseases, for no one would contend that dis- 
ease is an essential part of the constitution of the human 
body. Our principal object, however, in noticing the ob- 
jection is, to compare it with the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion of the human body. The change which is to take 
place in the bodies of the saints will be constitutional, if 
a constitutional change be possible. They are to be in- 
vested with new principles ; to be adapted to the occu- 
pancy of new elements, and to new modes of existence. 
But if their identity is not preserved, there is no resurrec- 
tion. The objection tends, therefore, to the destruction 
of the glorious doctrine of the resurrection of the human 
body. 

The doctrine respecting the nature of holiness which 
we have charged on the theory of modern Calvinism, is 
thus asserted by the Christian Spectator, Vol. iii, No. 3, 
p. 473 : "Holiness can no more be created in the soul 
than sin. It is, and must be, voluntary action, the free choice 



NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 115 

of the agent, or wants that which is essential to the na- 
ture of holiness." This is the doctrine advanced by Dr. 
Taylor, the Socinian, in the work reviewed by Mr. Wesley 
in his treatise on Original Sin. 



CHAPTER X. 

CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 

The doctrine that all depravity and holiness consists of 
voluntary action, leads directly to the doctrine, that infants 
have no moral character — are neither holy nor depraved. 
The passage from one doctrine to the other is short. If 
depravity and holiness consist wholly in voluntary and 
accountable action, and infants are incapable of such ac- 
tion, they can neither have the one nor the other. 

One or two examples will be sufficient to show that this 
doctrine also is held and taught. 

Mr. Finney, in his sermon on Why sinners hate God, 
says, " Perhaps some one will object and say, If sinners 
are not born with a sinful nature, how then are they saved 
by grace 1 But I ask in return, If they are born with a sin- 
ful nature, how are they saved by grace ? Does God cre- 
ate an infant a sinner, and then call it grace to save him 
from the sinfulness of a nature of his own creation ? Ab- 
surd and blasphemous." — p. 156. 

Again: " But let us look at this. Here are two sys- 
tems ; the one maintains that infants have no moral cha- 
racter at all until they have committed actual transgres- 
sion — that their first moral actions are universally sinful, 
but that previous to moral action they are neither sinful 
nor holy- — that, as they have no moral character, they de- 
serve neither praise nor blame ; neither life nor death at 
the hand of God ; God might annihilate them without in- 



116 



NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 



justice, or he may bestow upon them eternal life as a free 
and unearned gift. The other system maintains that in- 
fants have a sinful nature, which they have inherited from 
Adam." — Ibid. 

He proceeds to argue against the latter system, and in 
the course of the argument places his own system in con- 
trast with it. " But let us look," he says, " at the other 
system for a moment. This denies that infants have 
a sinful nature, and rejects the monstrous dogma, that God 
has created the nature sinful, and then pretends to save 
the infant from a nature of his own creation by grace, as 
if the infant deserved damnation for being what God made 
it,"— p. 157. 

Mr. Duffield developes his views on the subject in the 
following manner : " Our object is simply an observation 
of facts, as far as they tend to shape or affect the future 
moral character of the child. We say future, for it is a 
question alike pertinent and important, whether in the in- 
cipient period of infancy and childhood there can be any 
moral character whatever possessed." 

We are not left in the dark as to the side which he 
takes on this " question alike pertinent and important." 
He proceeds to explain what constitutes moral character. 
"Moral character," he says, "is acquired by acts of a 
moral nature. Moral acts are those acts which are con- 
templated by the law, prescribing the rule of conduct. It 
is not every act we perform that is a moral act." And 
the conclusion to which he comes is thus stated : " Such 
being the case, that many actions possess altogether an 
indifferent character, and some do not even fall under the 
cognizance of the law of God — and that too in adults, 
where the capacities for moral action are fully developed 
— it is obvious that in infancy and incipient childhood, 
where none of the actions are deliberate, or the result of 
motive, operating in connection with the knowledge of 



NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 



117 



law, and of the great end of all human actions, no moral 
character can appropriately be predicated" — pp. 377, 378. 

We shall not take up time in urging the objection with 
which Mr. Finney affects to grapple — that infants, if this 
theory be true, will not be saved by grace ; but we do in- 
vite a moment's attention to the unfairness with which he 
treats it. He undertakes to retort the objection. But, 
that his confident retort may appear plausible, he grossly 
misrepresents the theory of his opponents. He directs 
his argument against the supposition that God creates the 
infant a sinner. But who maintains this opinion ? That 
this misrepresentation was intentional, appears probable 
from the fact, that immediately before and after his retort, 
he states the orthodox tenet as it is, that infants " are born 
with a sinful nature ; that they have a sinful nature which 
they have inherited from Adam" Let him show, if he can, 
that there is no grace in saving infants from a depravity 
which is not supposed to be created, but naturally inherited. 
He also overlooks the principal meaning which the term 
grace is intended to convey — that of supernatural influence 
— and thus evades the force of the objection. 

There is another objection, however, with which he 
was doubtless acquainted, but which he declines intro- 
ducing to the notice of his readers, at least in this sermon. 
It is this : If infants have no moral character, they are, 
dying in infancy, ineligible to admission either into heaven 
or hell. Nothing can enter heaven but what is perfectly 
holy ; and if they are sent to hell they must be damned 
without either depravity or personal transgression, since 
both holiness and depravity are said to consist in voluntary 
exercises, of which they are incapable. Mr. F. no doubt 
had his eye on this difficulty when he said, " God might 
annihilate them without injustice, or he may bestow upon 
them eternal life as a free and unearned gift." But the 
difficulty is not their destitution of merit — their not having 



118 



NEW DIVINITY INFANTS. 



earned eternal life ; but their destitution of holiness. If he 
admits them into heaven, they must enter " without holi- 
ness." But if God cannot create holiness in the soul, as 
they have assured us, and as none can enter heaven with- 
out it, their exclusion is inevitable. 

It need not excite wonder if they should conclude that 
the best way of disposing of this objection, is that of main- 
taining silence respecting it. But it is not to be supposed 
that such daring speculators would suffer themselves to be 
pent in by it, without contriving some way of escape. 
Some have found relief by conceding that infants have a 
moral character, while, to avoid the necessity of admitting 
that holiness and depravity include more than voluntary 
action, they have adopted the theory that voluntary and 
accountable action commences at the time of birth — that 
" mankind are literally at birth voluntary and accountable 
agents, and actual sinners against God — that the new-born 
infant is a responsible subject of God's moral government." 

We shall not attempt to refute this incredible proposi- 
tion by entering upon the philosophical inquiries to which 
it might lead, but by bringing into view one or two of its 
theological aspects merely. Suppose this doctrine, for 
the sake of argument, to be true, we are placed in this 
dilemma : either all infants, from the period of their birth 
to the termination of infancy, voluntarily and constantly 
exert their powers of moral agency in obedience to the law 
of God, and thus secure their final salvation in case they 
die in infancy ; or, falling into sin, and under the con- 
demnation of the divine law, they are liable, even in ear- 
liest infancy, to the damnation of hell. Moreover, if this 
doctrine be true, we cannot see why infants may not com- 
mence their existence with " holy exercises," and perse- 
vere, and so present millions of exceptions to that doctrine 
of our Saviour, which affirms the universal necessity of 
the new birth. 



NEW DIVINITY- 



" REGENERATION. 



119 



We close this chapter by remarking that the reader 
will be able to see, in the light of these investigations, what 
is meant by many of the preachers and writers of New 
Divinity, when they so emphatically affirm that all are bom 
" destitute of holiness." It is meant, that they are born 
without a moral character of any kind. They are, accord- 
ing to this theory, bom as destitute of depravity as they 
are of holiness. 



CHAPTER XL 

REGENERATION. 

Another consequence resulting from the doctrines 
which have been reviewed is, that a voluntary change of 
will or purpose, merely, or a choice, or resolution, or determi- 
nation to be a Christian, or a change in the character of the 
voluntary exercises, is sufficient to constitute regeneration. 
This is plain. If depravity does not consist in a principle, 
or disposition, or propensity, or taste, or corruption of our 
nature, or any thing which " lies back of the will," or is 
anterior to our voluntary exercises, or is the cause of them, 
— if it is in no sense constitutional — if it consists wholly 
in being unwilling to obey God, or in wrong voluntary ex- 
ercises, which we have shown to be the case if the doc- 
trine of natural ability be true, an unregenerate man has 
only to choose, or purpose, or resolve, or make up his 
mind, or become willing to serve God and be a Christian 
— to commence a ne w course of voluntary exercises, which 
he has a natural ability to do at any time, and all his de- 
pravity is gone. He is regenerated. He is a Christian. 
No other change is necessary. 

This consequence, also, is adopted, and figures promi- 
nently in the doctrinal exhibitions of New Divinity. Dr. 



120 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

Lansing says, at the close of his sermon, " On the Inability 
of Sinners Voluntary," p. 1 54, " Our subject corrects an 
error into which some have fallen, on the great doctrine 
of regeneration. Sinners are called on to see and hear 
with the eyes and ears they have. They are not com- 
manded to make them eyes and ears that they may see 
and hear. Thence we learn what we are to understand 
by the requisition of God through the prophet, ' Make you 
a new heart.' Not a new principle of action, a new taste. 
Not alter the physical constitution. God has made this 
just as he would have it. Man is now all that it is ne- 
cessary he should be to render it proper or consistent to 
affirm praise or blame of him. Sinners can do right if 
they please, without a physical change. A moral change 
is necessary ; but a moral change is nothing more than a 
change of will, or purpose, or inclination; and it is this 
change that God, by the mouth of his prophet, commands 
the sinner to operate for himself, when he says, £ Make 
you a new heart and a new spirit.' c Cleanse your hearts, 
ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double-minded.' " 
Here he not only inculcates the doctrine that " a change 
of will, purpose, or inclination," constitutes regeneration, 
but plainly denies that it includes any thing more. He 
denies, specifically, that it consists in a change affecting 
the constitution, or the principles or sources of voluntary 
action. 

Mr. Duffield, in his work on Regeneration, maintains 
that it consists solely in a change of will or voluntary ex- 
ercises, and denies that it originates in the soul a new 
principle, to which holy exercises may be referred as their 
source. He refers to Dr. Witherspoon as expressing cor- 
rect views on the subject, in opposition to those of Dr. 
Owen and others : — " Dr. Witherspoon, on the one hand, 
in his valuable practical treatise on regeneration, at the 
very commencement, pronounces the Scriptural phrases, 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 121 

4 being born again,' 4 the new creature,' 4 his workmanship/ 
&c, to be metaphorical, thus evidently denying there is a 
literal or real creation. 

" He does indeed speak of an 4 inward and essential 
change,' but it is very evident that he does not, by these 
terms, denote any other change than may be traced in the 
voluntary exercises ; for he considers that it may be as ap- 
propriately designated by repentance as by regeneration." 
—p. 213. 

Again : " He does not pretend to 4 prove, or assert the 
existence of a principle of life, or any thing else, back of 
the voluntary exercises themselves, as the cause or origin 
of that holiness without which no man can see the Lord.' " 
—Ibid. 

Again : " It is going altogether beyond the analogy in 
the case, to assert that there is in regeneration the injec- 
tion, infusion, or implantation, or creation of a new princi- 
ple of spiritual life." — p. 204. 

Again : " It is philosophy, based on a false physiology, 
which comes in and says the Spirit secures the exercise 
of these graces by infusing grace, or by putting into the 
soul a principle of life, or by creating a disposition for holi- 
ness, which principle or disposition is the immediate cause 
of those holy exercises of mind and heart, technically 
called the graces of the Spirit." — p. 230. 

Again : 44 But we may know and trace the immediate 
effects of his, the 4 Spirit's' agency, inasmuch as they all 
lie in our voluntary acts and exercises" — p. 439. 

Again : 44 That the Spirit of God is the author of rege- 
neration, is not denied by those who speak of it as the 
commencement of a change in the character of our volun- 
tary exercises. Whether that change is the result of a 
creative act of God's physical power, — terminating on our 
constitutional capacities and susceptibilities ; or consists 
in the substitution or succession of new exercises of these 

6 



122 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

capacities and susceptibilities, the exercises taking their 
character from the objects and motives inducing them, are 
questions which have been already answered." — p. 480. 

Again : " Some vague and mystic notions are had about 
disposition and habit, as the proper philosophical cause of 
holy acts and exercises. This philosophical cause of holy 
acts and exercises is itself pronounced holy ; as every 
cause, it is thought, must possess the same quality or cha- 
racter with its effects ; and in the production, or commu- 
nication, or lodgment, or creation of this causal 4 some- 
thing,' this disposition or habit in the human soul, by the 
Spirit of God, it is alleged consists regeneration. Power 
is thus given to the regenerate man to perform holy acts, 
and thus the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit is re- 
solved into a mere physical efficiency ! iVnd all the pas- 
sages of Scripture which speak of his power in this con- 
nection, are explained by means of this philosophical 
invention /" — p. 511. 

The author of " Views in Theology" says, " But it will 
perhaps be asked, ' Admitting that the Divine Spirit em- 
ploys motives as an instrument in renovating- the mind ; 
still, after all, does he not do something more than merely 
brino- a moral influence to bear on it V What more ? What 

o 

more is necessary to be done ? What more can be done ? 
No physical change, as has been shown, is requisite ; no- 
thing needs to be accomplished, but simply to excite the 
mind to exert itself in a particular course of action" Again : 
" Those who are renovated neither exhibit any indication 
to others, nor have any consciousness themselves of hav- 
ing experienced any change, except in their manner of 
acting in relation to their obligations." — part iii, p. 84. 

The Rev. Theodore Spencer, known as an ardent pro- 
moter of New Divinity, in his tract entitled, " The De- 
ceived Professor Undeceived, and led quite to Christ," 
which professes to be a dialogue between a deceived pro- 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 123 

fessor and a minister, represents the parties as conversing 
in the following language : — 

" Minister. Did you not, previous to submission, spend 
much time in efforts to obtain right feelings, in endea- 
vouring to submit feelingly, or in prayer to God for a new- 
heart ? 

"Professor. I did, but without success. Indeed, at last, 
I despaired of ever doing duty. 

" Min. While despairing of success, and before indulging 
a hope, do you remember forming any determination as to 
your future course of life ; or making up your mind as to 
what God might do with you in time and eternity ? I do 
not refer to any act you would denominate as done feel- 
ingly, but a mere resolution neither preceded nor followed 
by perceptible feelings. 

" Pro. I do remember such an act, although I have not 
regarded it as of any importance. While alone in my 
room, reflecting on my dangerous state, I made up my mind 
to do my duty and serve God for the future. I have no 
recollection of any materially different resolution. 

" Min. That seemingly trivial determination was the gate 
by which you entered into the path you have since been 
walking, either to life or death ; it was your submission, 
either genuine or spurious." — p. 9. 

Whether the submission which this " mere resolution," 
— this " seemingly trivial determination" constituted, was 
genuine or spurious, depends, according to Mr. Spencer's 
notions, on whether it was entirely disinterested or not — 
whether it was formed in view of obtaining salvation, or 
without any reference to that object, and with a willing- 
ness to be saved or damned as God should determine. 

This professor is pronounced deluded, because he de- 
termined to obey in order to secure his salvation, and not 
" merely because God and duty required it, willing that 
right might take place whether" he were " saved or pun- 



124 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



ished." The resolution would have been genuine sub- 
mission if it had been formed with an entire indifference 
to his salvation. But those who do not hold this doctrine 
of disinterestedness, do not make it a part of the criterion 
of true submission. Nor is this to be regretted, as it serves 
only to render the heresy more pernicious and revolting. 

The Christian Spectator, in a review of a work written 
by Rev. Dr. Skinner, and President Beecher, of Illinois 
College, entitled, " Hints designed to aid Christians 

IN THEIR EFFORTS TO CONVERT MEN TO GOD," attributes tO 

those authors the doctrine under consideration. 

The reviewer remarks : " In examining these directions, 
we shall find that they are founded on such principles as 
the following : — 

" First, that the change in regeneration consists wholly 
in the sinner's own acts, and not in a change of any thing 
in the constitution of the mind lying back of those ac- 
tions."— p. 233, vol. iv, No. 2. 

The other principles relate to other topics. It is there- 
fore unnecessary to quote them at present. This doctrine 
is elaborately and perseveringly advocated by the con- 
ductors of the Christian Spectator. The reviewer gives 
it his cordial sanction. He says, with reference to seve- 
ral passages of Scripture which he quotes as countenan- 
cing it, " Now who that has not been misled by a philoso- 
phical theory, would imagine that by these directions it 
was meant or implied, that God must first change some 
constitutional principle or disposition in the mind, back of 
the man's actions, and thus prepare the persons addressed 
to perform the things required ?" 

Other examples might be adduced if necessary, but 
these are quite sufficient to show that we have neither 
hastily attributed this doctrine to the New School divines, 
nor reasoned incorrectly in deducing it from their views 
of natural ability and depravity. 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 125 

This doctrine is already refuted, inasmuch as the prin- 
ciples in which it has its origin have been proved to be 
both unscriptural and absurd. If depravity consists in 
something more than a want of " will" to serve God, or 
than wrong " voluntary exercises," that change by which 
it is removed must consist in something more than a 
change of purpose. 

The conclusion which we have thus drawn, will be 
found to accord with all the representations of Scrip- 
ture. They speak of the heart as the subject of the 
change under consideration. " I will give them one 
heart, and I will put a new spirit within you, and I will 
take the stony heart out of their flesh, and I will give them 
a heart of flesh. That they may walk in my statutes, 
and keep mine ordinances to do them ; and they shall be 
my people, and I will be their God," Ezek. xi, 19, 20. 
" The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the 
heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live," Deut. 
xxx, 6. " The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she 
attended to the things which were spoken by Paul," Acts 
xvi, 14. And without entering into the speculations of 
philosophy further than the Scriptures lead us, we may 
affirm, that the heart — the subject of this change, is not a 
mere purpose, a voluntary action, but a source of voluntary 
action. " But those things which proceed out of the 
mouth come forth from the heart ; and they defile the man. 
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul- 
teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies," 
Matt, xv, 18, 19. " With the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation," Rom. x, 10. If, then, the change takes place 
on the heart, which is here represented as the constitu- 
tional source of holy or sinful exercises, it must be some* 
thing more than a change of volition. 



126 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

" What are the marks of regeneration as furnished by 
the Scriptures ? They are, freedom from condemnation, 
deliverance from the thraldom of the flesh, and walking in 
the spirit, or obedience to the commands of God. But 
nothing is more clearly taught by the word of God, than 
that there may be a change of " will" and the voluntary 
exercises, and yet all these marks be absent. " For we 
know that the law is spiritual : but I am carnal, sold un- 
der sin. For that which I do I allow not : for what I 
w r ould, that do I not," &c. " I find then a law that when 
I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight 
in the law of God after the inward man : but I see an- 
other law in my members warring against the law of my 
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin 
which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" Here 
is the " will" manifesting itself in efforts to break the do- 
minion of the flesh and keep the law, but these efforts fail. 
They wage an unsuccessful conflict with the law of sin in 
the members — " the principle of sin personified," as Mr. 
Duffield denominates it. The lusts of the flesh triumph. 
The condemnation and wretchedness remain. And this 
state of things is described by the apostle, as anterior to a 
change in which all these difficulties are removed, and all 
the characteristics of a regenerate state exhibited. " There 
is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ 
Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh : that the 
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For as many as 
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 127 

In precise accordance with these examples and reason- 
ings, is the direction which Joshua gave to the Israel- 
ites. Some of them, and probably a considerable num- 
ber, were guilty of idolatry. He urged them to put away 
the gods which their fathers served, and serve the Lord. 
He insisted on an immediate choice, — " Choose you this 
day whom ye will serve," chap, xxiv, 23. They decided 
that they would serve the Lord. He then gave them 
to understand that the obligations they were assuming 
required great courage and determination, and that they 
could not serve God and idols at the same time. The 
people solemnly and voluntarily repeated their resolution 
to serve God. Joshua did not call in question their sin- 
cerity, but evidently assuming that this was their honest, 
deliberate purpose, addressed them in the following lan- 
guage : " Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye 
have chosen the Lord to serve him, and they said, We are 
witnesses." Now if a will, or purpose, or choice, or de- 
termination to serve God, constitutes or implies regenera- 
tion, these Israelites were regenerated as soon as they 
had made the choice. So Mr. Spencer understands the 
subject. He tells us that conversion " is that act which 
that devoted servant of God, Joshua, required of the Israel- 
ites after presenting the Lord before them. " Choose this 
day whom ye will serve," and it is that act which the 
people cordially performed, " we will serve the Lord." 
But Joshua understood the matter differently. He imme- 
diately adds, " Now, therefore, put away the strange gods 
which are among you, and incline your hearts unto the 
Lord God of Israel." A direction which plainly proves 
that, notwithstanding their resolution to obey God, there 
yet remained the task of putting away the strange gods, 
and inclining their hearts unto the Lord God of Israel : 
unless we suppose that a man may be regenerate before 
he puts away his idolatry and gives his affections to God. 



128 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



The resolution had to be carried into effect. It is not un- 
common for men, under the excitement of motives, to re- 
solve on actions which they never perform. When they 
proceed to the execution of their purpose, they come in 
contact with a disinclination which prostrates, and triumphs 
over, their most magnanimous resolves. This act of choice, 
instead of constituting regeneration, was but the com- 
mencement of the process which leads on to regene- 
ration. 

The doctrine which we oppose is refuted by all those 
passages of Scripture which represent salvation as condi- 
tional ; inasmuch as the performance of the condition, 
which in the nature of things must precede regeneration, 
presupposes the change of purpose — the choice, &c, in 
which it is alleged regeneration consists. 

The vain subterfuges to which the advocates of this 
doctrine are driven, in their efforts to sustain it, are of 
themselves sufficient to render it very suspicious. The 
Scriptures, as we have seen, represent the heart to be the 
subject of regeneration. Mr. Spencer, true to his theory, 
resolves the heart into mere action. In his tract, " The 
Sinner led quite to Christ," page 15, he says, "The 
term heart, when used as constituting the moral charac- 
ter of the soul, must mean the desires, affections, or acts 
of the soul, as the soul is to be praised or blamed only 
for its acts" 

Mr. Finney runs into the same egregious error. He de- 
fines the heart to be " that deep-rooted hut voluntary prefer- 
ence of the mind, which lies back of all its other voluntary 
affections and emotions, and from which they take their 
character." Regeneration he defines to be a voluntary 
change of this preference. But he is admirably incon- 
sistent. Can he not perceive the difficulty in which he 
involves himself? A man is voluntarily to change the 
preference which " lies back of all his other volitions" 



NEW DIVINITY- 



' REGENERATION. 



129 



A volition is to arise out of that preference, so hostile 
as to destroy it, and substitute for it one of a decidedly- 
opposite character. Out of the voluntary preference 
for sin, is to arise a voluntary preference for holiness. 
The volition which the preference originates, is to turn 
around and change the preference by which it is originated. 
The effect is to destroy its own cause. The difficulty is 
not relieved by a recurrence to the consideration, that this 
deep-seated preference is in the first instance voluntary — 
a pretence which will, by no means, endure the investi- 
gations of a sound philosophy : for when it has been 
once formed, all other volitions arise out of it, and must 
therefore be in accordance with it ; and the voluntary 
attempt of the individual, to whom it belongs, to change 
it, must encounter the impossibilities which we have 
specified. 

Mr. Dufrleld, for the same purpose, resorts to the 
science of physiology, and devotes two chapters to an 
investigation of the nature of life. He contends that it is 
not a principle, as is generally supposed — a cause of vital 
action, but consists in action itself. He defines it to con- 
sist in " the regular series of relative appropriate charac- 
teristic actions of an individual being." — p. 115. He 
attaches great importance to this speculation, as will 
appear from what he says on page 205 : " The writings 
of many theologians contain expressions which betray, 
at one time, utter ignorance, and at another, erroneous 
views with regard to the nature of life. It seems to be 
taken for granted by not a few, that, physiologically, life 
is a created essence, and itself a cause of those actions and 
processes in our animal frame, which we call vital ; and 
speaking analogically, therefore, as our terms are borrowed 
from material things, the impression is almost indelibly 
made that they consider regeneration literally to be the 
infusion, implantation, or creation of some inherent princi- 

6* 



130 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION* 



pie, essence, or substance, which is specifically the cause 
of those actions we account spiritual or holy." 

The application of his theory of life to the doctrine of 
regeneration is this : If natural life consists in action, we 
are authorized, by analogy, to conclude that spiritual life 
consists in action. And as regeneration is the commence- 
ment of spiritual life, it cannot consist in the origination 
of a new principle of spiritual action, but must consist 
wholly in the commencement of the action itself. " Re- 
generation," says he, " is the commencement of the life 
which has been lost, the rational soul of man beginning to 
act appropriately in the exercise of its moral powers or 
capacities." — p. 196. 

Whether life consists in action solely, or is a principle, 
we are not anxious at present to determine. This we 
know, that the views of many very able and popular 
physiologists are decidedly at variance with those of Mr. 
Duffield. 

But, even admitting that life does consist altogether in 
action, our very physiological theologian is exceedingly 
unfortunate in his definition of it. " It consists," he says, 
" in the regular series of relative appropriate characteristic 
actions of an individual being." But what does he mean 
by the " regular series ?" Does he mean the aggregate of 
a man's actions ? We cannot tell what other idea to attach 
to his phraseology. If he means some particular actions, 
it would be obligatory on him, in attempting a definition, 
to specify those actions in which life consists, in contra- 
distinction to those in which it does not consist. It is 
unnecessary, however, to search further, inasmuch as he 
uses another expression which determines his meaning to 
be as we have supposed. He speaks of it as " the totality 
of that series of actions or motions observable in an or- 
ganized body." Mark the effect of this definition ! If life 
consists in action, and it takes the " regular series," " the 



NEW DIVINITY ] 



•REGENERATION. 



131 



totality" of the actions of a being to constitute it, it will 
follow, inevitably, that no man is in possession of life un- 
til the last in the " series" of actions is performed, and by 
that time he will be dead ! Such is the fatally ludicrous 
consequence to which this definition fairly conducts us. 

Again, his own application of the definition completely 
explodes it. The design is to secure the doctrine that 
spiritual life consists solely in action, and that, of course, 
regeneration is simply a change of voluntary action. He 
gives us to understand that the first spiritual act indicates 
the existence of spiritual life. "Regeneration is the com- 
mencement of spiritual life. That life must have its 
commencement in some act or exercise, which is the first 
in the new series. Faith, which is simply a belief in the 
truth as made known by a credible witness, is that act or 
exercise of which, where God is the witness, life, in the 
sacred Scriptures, is predicated." " It will not be Ques- 
tioned on the one hand, that till a man believes he is des- 
titute of spiritual life ; nor, on the other, that he no sooner 
believes than he lives." — p. 202. 

Here we are plainly told that life has its commence- 
ment in the first act of the new series — that faith is the 
first act, and that a man no sooner performs that act than 
lie lives. From which it clearly follows, that a single act 
constitutes that, to constitute which the whole of a series 
of acts is necessary. 

The most formidable objection brought against the 
Scriptural doctrine of regeneration is, that it is " physical" 
This word, physical, seems to be the champion argument 
— the Goliath of the host. We find him, ever and anon, 
stalking forth on the field of controversy, armed in dread- 
ful italics, and frowning defiance. But it requires no ex- 
traordinary prowess to prostrate and decapitate him with 
his own sword. The objection is perfectly harmless. 
The term " physical," as we have seen, is ambiguous. 



132 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

Our New School friends choose to call every thing per- 
taining to man physical, except his voluntary actions. If, 
therefore, the change affects any thing but his voluntary 
actions, it must, of course, be a physical change. This 
sapient argument amounts to this, and no more : Your 
doctrine, that regeneration consists in something more 
than a change of voluntary exercises, is false and absurd, 
because it represents the change as consisting in some- 
thing more than a change of voluntary exercises. 

Mr. D. affects to find a number of weighty objections 
arising out of the practical influence of the doctrine he 
opposes — " its deleterious effects on practical piety." 
These he intimates are very numerous. "It does not com- 
port with the design of" his " work to enumerate them 
all." Some of them are, in our opinion, wholly imaginary ; 
while others are highly creditable to the doctrine against 
which they are urged. It does not comport with our 
design to review all the sophistries of Mr. D.'s book, but 
we will venture to notice one of these objections. It 
has some peculiarities, and may possibly work sudden 
conviction in minds of kindred taste with the one in 
which it originated. He says, " Its crippling and be- 
numbing effects have long been felt in the churches, 
where there has been intelligence associated with piety ; 
and where ignorance has obtained, the most wild and fa- 
natical delusions have flowed from it. Weak-minded and 
superstitious persons, considering regeneration to be an 
act of physical power, and altogether unobserving of their 
own conscious exercises, have mistaken excitements of 
feeling and reveries of imagination for the impulses and 
visions of the Spirit. We were once called to see a 
lecherous female, who supposed herself near death, and 
was exulting in the conviction that she had been born 
again, produced by the ease of body and revery of imagi- 
nation, induced by the use of laudanum, and whose belief 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 133 

in the Spirit's direct and powerful agency on the soul 
was not to be shaken, but who lived long enough to return 
to her wicked ways, and prove it all to have been a delusion." 

What would be the appropriate " voluntary exercise" in 
view of such an outrage on the decencies of theological 
controversy, whether pity or indignation, it is difficult to 
decide. What bearing, we ask, has this case on the doc- 
trine in question? Might she not as easily have been de- 
luded with the supposition that she had "submitted?" Who 
would be compelled to acknowledge her a genuine convert, 
even supposing her belief in the Spirit's direct and power- 
ful agency could not be shaken ? But since the case has 
been immortalized for - the purpose of throwing odium 
on the doctrine of a large proportion of the Christian 
community, we shall dispose of it by showing that the 
female in question exhibited ail the marks of genuine New 
School conversion. In the first place, all her depravity 
consisted in intelligent voluntary exercises. These may 
be as effectually interrupted by laudanum as by any other 
means. Of course, while she was under the influence of 
laudanum she was free from depravity, and therefore a 
Christian. But supposing that the effect of the laudanum 
was not sufficient to suspend the voluntary exercises, the 
case is not altered. There was evidently a change in the 
character of her voluntary exercises. She commenced a 
" new series." She sends for a minister, wills to be a 
Christian, and a change of purpose is all that is necessary 
to make her one ; and exults in the conviction that the 
change has taken place. As to her living long enough to 
return to her wicked ways, that does not necessarily prove 
that she was under a delusion. Mr. D. does not hold that 
Christians live without sin. He understands the Apostle 
Paul to be speaking of his own experience, in his regene- 
rate state, in the latter part of the seventh chapter of the 
Epistle to the Romans, where he says, " For we know 



134 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin," 
&c. He tells us that " of whatever deviations from the 
law the apostle was guilty, they were to be attributed to the 
influence of sin, which he personifies, and not to the deep 
and fixed principles of his renovated character. His will 
in the main was right, but it was resisted, counteracted, 
and ofttimes overpowered by various considerations, of 
which he did not cordially and deliberately approve, nor 
of that which they led him to do." Now we have only to 
apply these explanations to her case, and her subsequent 
sinning is accounted for, without supposing her deluded. 
It may be " attributed to the influence of sin personified, 
and not to the deep and fixed principles of" her " reno- 
vated character." Her "will, in the main," may have 
been " right," " but resisted, counteracted, and ofttimes 
overpowered by various considerations, of which" she 
" did not cordially approve, nor of that which they led" 
her " to do." 



CHAPTER XII. 

REGENERATION CONTINUED. 

It is clearly inferable, from the doctrines reviewed in 
the preceding chapters, that one single act of the mind — 
the very first which involves the smallest degree of conformity 
to the will of God, no matter what its specific character may 
be, constitutes regeneration, and changes a man in one mo- 
ment from an impenitent rebel into a Christian. According 
to this system, any act, professing to be preparatory or 
conducive to a change of heart, must be construed into a 
wilful tampering with solemn obligation. It is nothing 
more nor less, than purposely withholding from God what 
the sinner is able to render at once, on the pretext that 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 135 

there is something to be attended to by way of prepara- 
tion. What is this but downright rebellion ? Indeed, the 
rebellion, which consists in a prompt and honest refusal 
to obey, would be far less aggravated than that which pro- 
fesses to be preparing to do what may be done at any 
moment, if the individual of whom it is required is only 
willing, and which he postpones merely because he pre- 
fers to attend first to something else. Consequently, that 
one act by which he wills, or purposes, or begins to obey 
God, or turns aside in any way from unqualified rebellion, 
changes him, in one moment, from an impenitent rebel to a 
Christian. 

This consequence is not denied. It is also incorporated 
into the system, constitutes one of its distinctive tenets, 
and is frequently and unequivocally asserted. 

Dr. Beecher, in his " Views in Theology," remarks, 
" The graces of the Spirit admit not of a progressive crea- 
tion. Love or enmity, penitence or impenitence, faith or 
unbelief, are the only positive conditions of the human 
mind. There is and can be no such thing as love, peni- 
tence, or faith, half formed and progressive to a comple- 
tion."— p. 203. 

This passage plainly discloses the opinion, that one 
single act changes the sinner from total depravity to holi- 
ness. The first and faintest relenting of the enmity to 
God — one single act of repentance or faith, is sufficient to 
make a Christian. There is no such thing as repentance 
and faith begun and progressive to a completion. There 
is no process from total depravity to entire holiness — no 
transition state. The only alternatives are the impenitence, 
unbelief, and enmity, of the determined rebel, or the sanctity 
of the undoubted and full-grown Christian. 

Dr. Skinner and President Beecher give the following 
direction in " Hints to Aid Christians in their Efforts to 
Convert Men to God." " By all means avoid making the 



136 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

impression on the minds of those with whom you converse, 
that the work of becoming religious requires a considera- 
ble time to be spent in protracted efforts. Let them know 
that to become religious is an intelligent, voluntary, indi- 
visible act of the mind, in which it ceases to rebel against 
God, submits to his authority, and accepts his mercy. 
Tell them that to perform this act requires no length of 
time, and no protracted effort ; that it may be done at this 
time, and in this place ; and that if they depart from this 
place without performing this act, they go in the spirit of 
a stouter rebellion, and may bring upon themselves swift 
and sudden destruction." — p. 43. 

This language is plain, and to the purpose. It informs 
us, that becoming religious is one indivisible act, the per- 
formance of which requires no length of time, and no pro- 
tracted effort, but may be done in any place, and at any 
time ; and that this one act is that by which a man ceases 
to be a rebel against God; (so that of course he is a rebel 
until he performs it ;) and no matter what other acts he 
may perform, if he goes without performing this one indi- 
visible act, he goes in the spirit of a stouter rebellion ; and 
that this act is that by which he not only ceases to rebel, 
but likewise submits to God, and accepts of his mercy. 
Surely, nothing need be plainer than this. 

This doctrine is echoed by the Christian Spectator in 
a review of the w r ork just referred to. The reviewer says, 
" Let him (the sinner) also be made to feel that every 
thing done by him, short of making a new heart, is only 
resisting the last hope of a lost soul." — p. 242, vol. iv, No. 2. 

It is strongly reasserted in the same number, in an arti- 
cle on intercessory prayer. The writer says, " This is 
the way to get out of his dilemma. It requires only one 
simple, indivisible act, and can never occupy more than a 
moment of time. It is an act which he is bound by every 
possible obligation to perform immediately ; and, to make 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 137 

the point as clear as possible, we will add, that act in 
which a sinner ceases from his rebellion, and accepts of 
mercy and salvation on God's terms." — p. 274. 

Here we are plainly told that it requires but one simple, 
indivisible act, which the sinner is bound to perform, to 
rescue him from his dilemma ; that it is by this act that 
the sinner ceases from his rebellion, and accepts of 
mercy and salvation on God's terms, and, of course, be- 
comes a Christian ; that he is under obligation to perform 
this act immediately ; that it can never occupy but a mo- 
ment of time, and that any thing short of this act, or mak- 
ing a new heart, is only resisting " the last hope of a lost 
soul." 

The Rev. Mr. Dufrleld says, " Regeneration is the com- 
mencement of the life that has been lost — the rational soul 
of man beginning to act appropriately in the exercise of its 
moral powers or capacities — his mind, and will, and heart, 
being directed to God as the supreme and chief end." — 
p. 195. 

Again : " This life commences with his faith, or belief 
in the testimony of God — the first in the series of those 
acts and exercises in which it consists." — p. 197. 

Again : " The life of the rational soul, it has been seen, 
consisted originally in the relative series of those actions 
appropriate to its necessitabilities and capacities, in the 
perception, approbation, pursuit, and enjoyment of the 
divine favour, as its true and supreme felicity. This life 
has been lost. Men are naturally opposed to God, as 
shall be shown hereafter. Regeneration is the commence- 
ment of spiritual life. That life must have its commence- 
ment in some act or exercise which is the first in the series" 
—p. 201. 

Again : " Now it is obvious, that there is a natural ten- 
dency of the truths and facts revealed in the Scriptures, 
to induce those exercises, appropriate to the capacities, 



138 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

conditions, and relations of men, in the commencement of 
which consists regeneration" — p. 533. 

Examples from this author might be multiplied, but 
these are quite sufficient to disclose his views on this sub- 
ject. He tells us that spiritual life consists in appropriate 
action, or exercise of the powers of the soul ; that this 
life, which was lost, is restored by regeneration ; that re- 
generation is beginning to act appropriately ; that life must 
have its commencement in some act or exercise, and that 
the act in which it commences is the first in the new 
series. 

Mr. Barnes, who is much more cautious in his develop- 
ments of New Divinity than many who have not been 
placed in such delicate and perplexing circumstances, ex- 
emplifies the tendency of his theory in this direction, and 
proclaims his opinion in the following definition of regene- 
ration, contained in his sermon on " The Way of Salva- 
tion." " It is," says he, " that revolution of character, 
when a man ceases to be a sinner total and unqualified, and 
begins to be a man of holiness." 

This passage is explicit. It is certainly by the first 
good act that a man ceases to be a sinner total and unquali- 
fied; that act we are told is regeneration, and consequently 
it makes him a Christian. Regeneration is not, according 
to this theory, that " revolution of character" by which a 
penitent struggling with innate depravity, and believing in 
Jesus Christ, is, in view of his previous faith and peni- 
tence, graciously delivered from its bondage. The very 
first movement of the mind — the very first thought — the 
first volition by which he turns aside from total and un- 
qualified rebellion, is regeneration. 

This doctrine is strongly asserted by Mr. Lord, the New- 
York author of " Views in Theology." He objects to 
"that definition of regeneration which exhibits it as a 
change of the governing purpose in respect to the object 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 139 

of supreme affection, or a mere determination to love and 
serve God." He affirms that it is " at variance with the 
divine word, the laws of our agency, and the testimony 
of consciousness." We are not to suppose, from this lan- 
guage, that he objects to this definition as falling short 
of regeneration, although that would naturally be the first 
impression. He contends that a " determination to love 
and serve God, or make him the object of supreme regard," 
cannot in every instance be " the first act of obedience." 
To be an obedient act, he argues, " it must spring from a 
present love or preference of God ;" it must be a " conse- 
quence of right affections, and therefore not the first obe- 
dient act." The argument is, that this determination 
to love and serve God implies a previous regeneration, 
and therefore cannot constitute regeneration. But his 
principal objection to this definition is, that it proceeds on 
the assumption, " that the first obedient act, whatever it 
may be, is in every instance of the same species, as an 
act of determination, of submission, of love, or of faith, in 
distinction from all other forms of obedience." 

He contends that this is not the case, and that the na- 
ture of the first obedient act will be determined by the 
nature of the mind's perceptions at the time ; " and may 
differ in its form in different individuals, according as their 
perceptions vary in nature or extent, or the relations differ 
in which God, or the truths that respect him, are contem- 
plated." He goes on to affirm that " in some it may be 
self-abhorrence, humility, penitence, approval of the divine 
law ; in others, an adoring acquiescence in the purity and 
rectitude of God, submission to his will, complacency in 
his benevolence, gratitude for his mercy, reliance on his 
promises, a joyful acceptance of salvation through Christ, 
or any other form of obedient agency in which there is no 
reference to a previous state of obedience.' 1 '' — p. 360. 

Here it is plainly inculcated, that not only does the very 



140 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

first act, performed in obedience to the divine requirement, 
constitute or presuppose regeneration, but that it is no 
matter what the specific form of the act may be. It may 
be the first act of self-abhorrence, humility, penitence, 
faith, gratitude, or any other form of agency which the 
law of God may require. Hence, if the law of God 
require of us a desire for salvation, the first emotion of 
desire is sufficient to secure the favour of God and re- 
generation. 

Mr. Finney, in his lecture on " Directions to Sinners," 
uses similar language. " It is a great error," he says, "to 
suppose that any one particular exercise is always fore- 
most in conversion, or that every sinner must have faith 
first, or submission first. It is not true, either in philoso- 
phy or fact. There is a great variety in people's exer- 
cises. Whatever point is taken hold of between God and 
the sinner, when the sinner yields that, he is converted. 
Whatever the particular exercise may be, if it includes obe- 
dience of heart to God on any point, it is true conversion. 
When he yields one point to God's authority, he is ready 
to yield all. When he changes his mind, and obeys in 
one thing because it is God's will, he will obey in other 
things, so far as he sees it to be God's will." — p. 344. 

Additional quotations are unnecessary. Those which 
we have given are full and explicit, and from distinguished 
sources. We do not wish to be understood as affirming, 
that the New School preachers and writers never contra- 
dict these doctrines, and teach those which are more 
Scriptural ; but that they belong strictly and properly to 
the system of New Divinity, and are actually promulgated 
by its leading abettors. 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



141 



CHAPTER XIII. 

REGENERATION CONTINUED. 

As the dangerous positions exposed in the preceding 
chapter have been asserted and reiterated, both from the 
pulpit and the press, we will endeavour to disprove them 
by comparing them with that infallible criterion of truth, 
the holy Scriptures. 

Before entering immediately upon the argument, we 
would remark, that the error of the first position does not 
consist in asserting that one single act ultimately intro- 
duces a man to the blessing of justification, and its con- 
comitant attainments. It is certain that, however length- 
ened may be the series of acts and exercises which 
precedes that blessing, there must be one of that series 
with which it is immediately connected. For illustra- 
tion, I cannot pass from the room in which I now write, 
and enter another, a mile distant, by one single step. By 
successive steps I must leave one apartment, and arrive 
at the threshold of the other. But when I arrive there, 
it is ultimately by one single step that I cross the thresh- 
old, and enter that apartment. And if I refuse to take 
that one step, I must remain without, notwithstanding all 
the previous steps I have taken. Thus it is with the sin- 
ner who turns to God and seeks his favour. He enters 
upon a series of exercises, but there is one single act of 
faith which at last secures him justification. The doctrine 
that we object to is, that one single act changes a man 
from an impenitent rebel to a Christian ! — that there is 
no process in the change ; that one moment the sinner is 
a rebel total and unqualified — growing worse instead of 
better — and the next moment he is a Christian ! 

To state the doctrine fully must, we think, be sufficient 



142 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

to refute it. Look at it again ! A man is rapidly aggra- 
vating his rebellion, by every succeeding act growing 
worse and worse — when lo ! just as his rebellion is at its 
height, without one single intervening thought, or step, 
conducing to such a change, in one moment of time, by 
the very next volition, he makes himself a Christian. He 
leaps, by one single bound, as sudden as the lightning's 
flash, from one confirmed state of mind — a state of mind 
becoming more and more confirmed and inveterate by each 
successive act — to another state of mind, so different from 
the former, that the change is denominated by the inspired 
writers, who best understand it, a new creation — being 
brought from darkness to light — translated from the king- 
dom of Satan into the kingdom of God. Is this philo- 
sophical ? We aver that it is downright nonsense. But 
this is a matter to be settled by the authority of Scripture. 
To the Scriptures, therefore, we turn, for their unerring 
decision. 

In the first place they represent it to be the duty of men 
to hear the word of God. The Apostle Paul reasons thus 
on the subject : " How then shall they call on him in 
whom they have not believed ? and how shall they be- 
lieve in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher ?" Again : " So then faith 
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 
While many are placed in circumstances that render their 
hearing the word of God almost inevitable, there are thou- 
sands who utterly neglect or refuse to hear it. The word 
of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, " Son of man, thou 
dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have 
eyes to see and see not, ears they have to hear and hear 
not, for they are a rebellious house." Our Saviour com- 
plained of the people thus : " For this people's heart is 
waxed gross, and their eyes have they closed ; lest at any 
time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 143 

ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should 
be converted, and I should heal them." Hence the pecu- 
liarly solemn and emphatic manner in which it is enjoined, 
" Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak ; and hear, O 
earth, the words of my mouth. O earth, earth, earth, hear 
the word of the Lord." " This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." " And it shall 
come to pass, that every soul which w 7 ill not hear that 
prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. Who 
hath ears to hear let him hear." 

But simply hearing the word of God, although a duty, 
is not sufficient. Our Saviour and his apostles cautioned 
those who heard, to take heed how they heard. Attention 
is necessary — attention to the import and application of the 
message. Our Saviour complained of some in his day in 
this language : " Therefore speak I to them in parables ; 
because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, 
neither do they understand." This language plainly im- 
plies that the word may be so heard, that the effect is the 
same as if it were not heard. It fails to make the neces- 
sary impression on the understanding. This subject the 
Saviour illustrates by the parable of the sower. " When 
any one heareth the word of the kingdom and understand- 
eth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away 
that which was sown in his heart. This is he which re- 
ceiveth seed by the way-side." There are thousands of 
" way-side" hearers. They listen so carelessly, that they 
immediately lose the impression of what they have heard. 
Now if they were wholly incapable of being more deeply 
impressed, they would be inexcusable. But this is not 
the case. It is w r ilful inattention which makes the hearino: 
of none effect. Hence the hearing required is sometimes 
qualified by the word "diligently:" "Wherefore do ye 
spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour 
for that which satisfieth not ? Hearken diligently unto me, 



144 



NEW DIVINITY— REGENERATION. 



and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight 
itself in fatness," Isaiah lv, 2. Again : " If thou wilt dili- 
gently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt 
do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his 
commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none 
of those diseases upon thee which I have brought upon 
the Egyptians ; for I am the Lord that healeth thee," 
Exodus xv, 26. While therefore the children of men are 
required to place themselves in a situation for the word of 
God to fall upon their outward ears, they are likewise re- 
quired to give it the attention of their understanding. 

The Scriptures likewise charge the impenitent with a 
want of consideration of divine things. Jehovah complains 
thus : " The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his mas- 
ter's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people doth not 
consider." " And they consider not in their hearts that I 
remember all their wickedness." This exercise is dis- 
tinctly and separately required and enforced by the law 
of God. " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider your 
ways." " 0 that they were wise, that they understood this, 
that they would consider their latter end." " Now consider 
this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces and there 
be none to deliver." 

Now consideration is an exercise distinct from that of 
simple attention. A man may give his attention to a state- 
ment or argument, so as to understand it perfectly, and 
then dismiss the subject from his mind, and devote his 
meditation wholly to other subjects, and forget what he 
has heard. Whereas, to consider, is to reflect upon a 
subject, review it with serious deliberation. The Apostle 
James illustrates this point in the following manner : " For 
if any be a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like 
unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass ; for he 
beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway 
forge tteth what manner of man he was. But whoso look* 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 145 

eth into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, 
he, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, 
this man shall be blessed in his deed. 5 ' 

Again : the law of God requires of the sinner, in order 
to his acceptance and salvation, that he solemnly choose 
the service of God, and make up his mind, and purpose 
to obey his commandments. Hence Joshua thus addressed 
the children of Israel : " And if it seem evil unto you to 
serve the Lord, choose ye this day whom ye will serve ; 
whether the gods which your fathers served, that were on 
the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites 
among whom you dwell : but as for me and my house, we 
will serve the Lord." And even if there were no passage 
in the Bible specifying this act of the mind as necessary 
to becoming a servant of God, it is too plain a matter to 
be overlooked. Can God be supposed to approve and ac- 
cept of a man, who, with a knowledge of his law, hesi- 
tates, and is undecided which course he will pursue ? 
Besides, whatever may be the nature of that effort by 
which we enter into the kingdom of God, the representa- 
tions which are made of its difficulty, prove that it requires 
a determined state of mind, a fixedness of purpose. The 
Saviour admonishes us thus : " Strive to enter in at the 
strait gate, for many I say unto you shall seek to enter in 
and shall not be able." Again : " For the kingdom of 
heaven sufTereth violence, and the violent take it by force." 
But why do I attempt to prove this point 1 Who could 
think of calling in question this position ; or of asserting 
that a man may be saved without ever making up his mind 
to serve God ? 

Let us now look for a moment at the result of our in- 
quiries. We have ascertained the necessity of four dis- 
tinct and successive acts and exercises of the mind, in 
order to acceptance with God, and regeneration. But, if 
hearing the word of God, and giving strict attention to the 

7 



146 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

message, and serious reflection upon it, were not distinct 
exercises, and distinctly enjoined ; if, on the contrary, 
they may be supposed to constitute but one exercise, the 
requisition last noticed is sufficient to demolish the posi- 
tion, that one single act of the mind changes a man from 
an impenitent rebel to a Christian. For, besides the fact 
that two exercises are distinctly and peremptorily enjoined, 
the choice or purpose, to be an intelligent act, and not 
merely the result of caprice, must be in view of some rea- 
son, and therefore necessarily presupposes the hearing, 
attention, and deliberation which are enjoined ; so that no 
man can even make up his mind to become a Christian 
without performing a series of acts. 

But this choice or determination to serve God does not 
terminate the series. It is not enough. The sinner is 
likewise required to confess his sins. " He that covereth 
his sins shall not prosper, but he that confesseth and for- 
saketh his sins shall find mercy," Prov. xxviii, 13. Again: 
" If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of 
their fathers, with the trespass which they trespassed 
against me, and also that they have walked contrary to me ; 
and that I also have walked contrary to them, and have 
brought them into the land of their enemies, if their un- 
circumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept of the 
punishment of their iniquity ; then will I remember my 
covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, 
and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember ; 
and I will remember their land," Lev. xxvi, 40. Again : 
" If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," 
1 John i, 9. 

The confession required in these passages is obviously 
in order to salvation. It is the confession of the guilty 
sinner, the uncircumcised in heart, that he may obtain for- 
giveness. We have here, not only an additional exercise, 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION, 147 

equally necessary with those previously stated, but one 
which clearly implies them, especially a purpose to for- 
sake all sin and obey God. Confessions of sin which are 
not preceded by a purpose of mind to forsake it, would be 
an insult to divine authority. Besides all this, confession 
of sin itself must consist rather in a class of actions than 
in one single act. 

But there are other exercises required. The sinner 
must pray to God for mercy, as well as confess his sins. 
So the apostle directed Simon the sorcerer. " Thy money 
perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift 
of God may be purchased with money, thou hast neither 
part nor lot in this matter : for thy heart is not right in 
the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wicked- 
ness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy 
heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art 
in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," Acts 
viii, 20-23. Isaiah asserts this obligation when he says, 
" Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon 
him while he is near : let the wicked forsake his way, 
and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return 
unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to 
our God, for he will abundantly pardon," lv, 6. It is en- 
joined by the mouth of the Prophet Jeremiah : " Then 
shall ye call upon me, and I will hearken unto you. And 
ye shall seek me and shall find me, when ye shall search 
for me with all your heart," Jer. xxix, 12, 13. 

This obligation is also distinctly recognised by the fol- 
lowing passages : " If they sin against thee, (for there is 
no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, 
and deliver them over before their enemies, and they 
carry them away captives into a land far off or near ; yet 
if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are 
carried captive, and turn and pray unto thee in the land of 
their captivity, whither they have carried them captives, 



1 48 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, we have 
dealt wickedly, &c, &c. : then hear thou from the hea- 
vens, even from thy dwelling place, their prayer and their 
supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy peo- 
ple which have sinned against thee," 2 Chron. vi, 36, 37, 39. 
Again : " Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which 
thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the Lord, 
in the ears of the people, in the Lord's house upon the 
fasting day : and also thou shalt read them in the ears of 
all Judah that come out of their cities. It may be they 
will present their supplication before the Lord, and will re- 
turn every one from his evil way : for great is the anger 
and the fury that the Lord hath pronounced against them," 
Jer. xxxvi, 6, 7. Again : " And it shall come to pass, that 
whosoe ver shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," 
Rom. x, 13. 

Repentance is required in order to salvation : " Repent 
ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out," Acts iii, 19. It is not necessary to our pre- 
sent purpose to define repentance, or determine its relation 
to all the other exercises with which it is connected. It 
is sufficient that it is required, and that it is distinct from 
other required acts. This, we think, is undeniable. What 
repentance can there be which is not founded on a con- 
viction of sin, and of the justice of the Almighty's claims ? 
But this conviction must result from a previous attention 
to, and consideration of, these things. And while repent- 
ance thus plainly presupposes these acts, there are other 
acts which as certainly presuppose repentance. This, we 
think, is the case with prayer and confession of sin. 

Again. Faith is an indispensable prerequisite to salva- 
tion. " Without faith it is impossible to please God." 
" He that believeth shall be saved. He that belie veth not 
shall be damned." Now, it can scarcely be necessary to 
attempt to prove that this act is distinct from many of those 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



149 



which hare been specified. It must, in the nature of things, 
be preceded by attention to the word of God. The apostle 
tells us that " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
word of God." Again : while faith must be preceded by 
certain acts, there are other acts which necessarily pre- 
suppose faith. For instance : Can a man repent of his 
sins toward God, who does not believe in the existence 
of a God, or of a divine government, or that the govern- 
ment of God lays him under obligation to pursue a differ- 
ent course of conduct to that which he has pursued ? The 
apostle settles this matter definitely: "And how shall they 
call on him Gn whom they have not believed ? For he that 
cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is a 
rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 

It may present a difficulty to some minds, that faith 
should be made the grand consideration in view of which 
a sinner is justified, and yet be required to precede other 
acts which are necessary. It is not faith simply, it is not 
any one act of faith, or faith in any one proposition, or any 
supposable degree of faith, which justifies the ungodly, but 
faith in certain specified truths, and such a degree of faith 
as amounts to trust, to entire confidence. Thus it is that 
those acts which necessarily presuppose faith, lead on, at 
the same time, to other acts of faith, and increase its 
strength, until, at last, that faith is exercised which brings 
salvation. 

The comprehensive requisition which enjoins that we 
seek the favour of God, is sufficient to refute the doctrine, 
that one single act of the mind constitutes the great change. 
Seeking God doubtless includes all that is necessary to be 
done. But search for an object implies, that from some 
cause or causes it is not immediately accessible, and that 
a succession of efforts must be made to obtain it. 

These exercises are represented as characterized by 
distress of mind in a greater or lesser degree. Indeed, this 



150 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

state of mind is made obligatory. Not that we are re- 
quired to produce it by direct efforts to that end, but we 
are required to perform acts which it invariably accom- 
panies. 

The examples of conversion recorded in the Scriptures, 
will be found decidedly at variance with this dogma of 
New Divinity. A few of them will be presented. 

Take the case of the publican : " Two men went up 
into the temple to pray : the one a Pharisee, the other a 
publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with him- 
self : God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, ex- 
tortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this poor publican: 
I fast twice a week : I give tithes of all that I possess. 
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so 
much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, 
saying, God be merciful to me a sinner !" Luke xviii. 

Here are presented to us three distinct exercises. 
First, he was deeply distressed on account of his sins, as 
was indicated by his smiting upon his breast, and by his 
downcast eyes ; secondly, he confessed himself a sinner 
against God; and, thirdly, he prayed for mercy. But 
while these acts are stated, how many are implied ? He 
had, no doubt, heard the word of God, given to it the at- 
tention of his mind, seriously considered its representa- 
tions of his condition, and the claims of God, yielded the 
convictions of his understanding to the testimony of reve- 
lation, and fully purposed to forsake his sins and serve 
God. And now, with this conviction and this purpose, he 
comes to the temple of God, to humble himself, confess 
his sins, and pray for salvation. 

Take the case of the jailer, Acts xvi, 30. He was con- 
vinced that he was a sinner, and exposed to punishment. 
He inquired of the apostle what he must do to be saved. 
This inquiry was sincere, and therefore implied a desire or 
determination to do what was required. The apostle 



NEW DIVINITY- 



" REGENERATION. 



151 



directed him to perform the additional act of believing on 
the Lord Jesus Christ. -This act he performed, and was 
converted, and rejoiced in God. 

Look at the history of St. Paul's conversion. When 
recovered from his sudden prostration, he said, " Who art 
thou, Lord I And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou 
persecutest : it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 
And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do ?" The Lord declined giving him, in 
person, the instructions necessary, but directed him to 
Damascus, saying, " Arise, and go into the city, and it 
shall be told thee what thou shalt do." His company led 
him to Damascus, w^here he fasted and prayed for three 
days. There Ananias came to him, and, having first re- 
stored him to sight, (for the vision left him blind,) and in- 
formed him of the revelation he had received respecting 
him, addressed him thus : " And now why tarriest thou ? 
Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord," Acts xxii, 16. Attending to 
these duties, he received the Holy Ghost. He then par- 
took of food, and w T as strengthened in body as well as in 
mind. 

Here also we have a series of acts. He first, as a mat- 
ter of course, inquires, " Who art thou, Lord ?" The term 
" Lord," in this interrogation, is used merely as an ex- 
pression of respect, like the w r ord, sir. When informed 
on this point, he relinquishes his designs of persecution, 
and purposes obedience to the will of Christ. When he 
inquired what he should do, it was no doubt his fixed pur- 
pose to do whatever was enjoined. He then, in obedience 
to the divine direction, proceeded to Damascus, and there 
fasted and prayed. And it was not until three days had 
elapsed, that Ananias found him and gave him the direc- 
tions already quoted, in attending to which, he received 
the Holy Ghost. 



152 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

The parable of the prodigal son furnishes an interest- 
ing illustration of this subject, Luke xv, 11. He com- 
menced by reflecting on his sad condition, comparing it 
with that of the servants in his father's house : "And when 
he came to himself he said, How many hired servants in 
my father's house have bread enough and to spare, and I 
perish with hunger." He then came to this resolution — 
/ will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, 
Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and 
am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one 
of thy hired servants." He then proceeded to carry his 
purpose into' effect by returning home, making the humble 
confession, and presenting the equally humble petition 
which his feelings and judgment dictated. And it was 
at this point that he met with the compassion and forgive- 
ness of his father. 

David's account of his penitential exercises will be 
found equally at variance with the New School theory, 
and in accordance with the views which we advocate : 
" Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving 
kindness : according unto the multitude of thy tender mer- 
cies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly 
from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I 
acknowledge my transgression : and my sin is ever before 
me. Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil 
in thy sight : that thou mightest be justified when thou 
speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was 
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 
Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts : and in 
the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. 
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, 
and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy 
and gladness ; that the bones which thou hast broken may 
rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all 
mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 153 

renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from 
thy presence ; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. 
Restore to me the joy of thy salvation ; and uphold me 
with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy 
way, and sinners shall be converted unto thee." — Psa. li. 

Here we have w fixed purpose of mind, a confession of 
depravity and transgression, an earnest prayer both for 
forgiveness and sanctiflcation, and confidence in the mercy 
of God. Perhaps it may be supposed, by some, that the 
aspect of the question is changed by the consideration 
that this was not the psalmist's first conversion, but his 
recovery from backsliding. This does not alter the case. 
The instructions of Christ to those who have left their first 
love are to repent and do their first works. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

REGENERATION CONTINUED. 

We have seen that the system of New Divinity teaches 
that the sinner, in becoming religious, is changed, in one 
moment, by one indivisible act of the mind, from the con- 
dition of an impenitent rebel into that of a Christian. 
Against this doctrine the argument of the preceding chap- 
ter was directed. We there endeavoured to prove that the 
change from one of these characters to the other, includes 
a series of distinct exercises — a succession of changes. 
At this point we are met by an objection. It is argued, 
that those exercises which are supposed to precede the 
one act by which a man becomes a Christian, are either 
penitent and believing, or impenitent and unbelieving. If 
penitent and believing, then he who performs them is al- 
ready a Christian. If impenitent and unbelieving, they 



154 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION* 

cannot possibly be acceptable to God, or conduce to a 
change of heart ; but, on the contrary, must accumulate 
guilt, and thus separate more widely between him and his 
God. This objection seems to be relied upon, as armed 
with irresistible power. It is frequently reiterated, and 
may be made to look very plausible. We will examine 
it for a moment. 

It evidently assumes that there are no degrees of re- 
pentance or faith, and that the very first act or degree of 
repentance or faith, is all that is required to make the 
Christian : — that the requisition of the gospel in this re- 
spect is fully met at once, or we remain wholly impeni- 
tent and unbelieving. If we can overthrow this assump- 
tion, the objection vanishes. It will follow that we may 
be penitent and believing to some extent, and yet be re- 
quired to perform acts which conduce to those further 
degrees of penitence and faith which are necessary to sal- 
vation. 

There are portions of the Scriptures which, we think, 
cannot be intelligibly interpreted, except on the principle 
that there are degrees of repentance. What are we to 
understand by that passage which says, " Now I rejoice, 
not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to re- 
pentance : for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that 
ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly 
sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented 
of ; but the sorrow of the world worketh death," 2 Cor. 
7-9. Here we are told that " godly sorrow worketh re- 
pentance unto salvation." An attempt may be made to 
evade the force of this passage, by asserting that sorrow 
is not repentance, and that they do not necessarily accom- 
pany each other. But this would be unavailing in the 
present instance. It is readily granted that "the sorrow 
of the world may have no connection with repentance, but 
whoever thought of a wholly impenitent sinner influenced 



NEW DIVTNTTY REGENERATION. 155 

by godly sorrow for his sins — a sorrow working repent- 
ance unto salvation. If godly sorrow is not repentance, it 
certainly implies repentance. But the truth in the case is 
this, godly sorrow is repentance itself, prompting to ap- 
propriate acts by which repentance is increased to that 
degree which connects it with salvation. The apostle 
informs us in what way " godly sorrow" conduced to this 
result in the Corinthians : " For behold, this self-same 
thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness 
it wrought in you ; yea, what clearing of yourselves ; yea, 
what indignation ; yea, what fear ; yea, what vehement 
desire ; yea, what zeal ; yea, what revenge ; in all these 
things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this 
matter." Can the sorrow which produces these effects, 
so highly commended by the apostle, be ascribed to an 
entirely and obstinately impenitent man 1 

We are also sustained by the following text, Jer. xxxi, 
18, 19: "I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning him- 
self thus : Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, 
as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke : turn thou me, and 
I shall be turned, for thou art the Lord my God. Surely 
after that I was turned, / repented ; and after that I was 
instructed, I smote upon my thigh. I was ashamed, yea, 
even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my 
youth." Ephraim is here represented as in deep distress, 
bemoaning and reproaching himself for his past perverse- 
ness. He prays thus, " Turn thou me ;" and connects 
v/ith his prayer this declaration of his faith, " and I shall 
be turned, for thou art the Lord my God." He then adds, 
" Surely after that I was turned, I repented." Meaning, 
evidently, after my prayer was answered by the vouch- 
safement of the desired and gracious influences, I re- 
pented. 

Now, if there are not degrees of repentance, we have 
this strange spiritual phenomenon: Ephraim, while en- 



156 



NEW DIVINITY- 



' REGENERATION. 



tirely impenitent, becomes profoundly sorrowful on ac- 
count of his sins and depravity, makes the most humilia- 
ting confession of them, prays to God that he may be 
turned, and grounds his expectation of relief on the cove- 
nant of mercy. In answer to this prayer, God turns him. 
After all this has taken place, he repents for the first time, 
and begins, for the first time, to act under the influence 
of penitential feelings. Who can believe such an ab- 
surdity ? He that can, is not to be convinced by reason or 
Scripture. The obvious explanation of this passage is, 
Ephraim becomes penitent, and expresses his penitence 
by his moanings, his confessions, his self-upbraidings, and 
his prayer. By these acts, and especially by the influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit in answer to his prayer, his peni- 
tence is increased; it assumes a more thorough, confirmed, 
and decided character, and gives rise to those strong ex- 
pressions of feeling which are thus described, " Surely 
after that I was turned I repented" — my penitence became 
deep and agonizing — " I smote upon my thigh. I was 
ashamed and confounded." 

That there are degrees of faith, is sufficiently proved 
by the reproof which our Lord addressed to his disciples : 
" O ye of little faith," and by their prayer, " Lord, increase 
our faith." Both the reproof and the petition would seem 
to be utterly irrelevant, on the supposition that there is 
no such thing as faith imperfect " and progressive to com- 
pletion." 

The inference from all this is plain and conclusive. If 
there are degrees of repentance and faith, a man may per- 
form acts which are not wholly impenitent and unbeliev- 
ing, notwithstanding they precede those acts and degrees 
of repentance and faith which are immediately connected 
with pardon and regeneration. 

The objector, if he determine to abide by this objec- 
tion, must al.%o encounter this difficulty. If no act can be 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 157 

acceptable to God that does not proceed from repentance 
and faith, and if the first act of repentance or faith is suf- 
ficient to constitute a man a Christian, it follows, unan- 
swerably, that no man can do any thing toward becoming 
a Christian until he is a Christian. When he is required 
to do any thing toward becoming a Christian, he is re- 
quired to be a Christian before he does that which is ne- 
cessary to make him one. 

There is another form of the same objection which it 
may be proper to notice. It is contended that all acts 
which precede regeneration are unholy, and therefore can- 
not be supposed to promote regeneration, but, on the con- 
trary, must be unacceptable and offensive to God. 

Perhaps the objection derives its plausibility, chiefly, 
from the error of predicating unholiness of the actions, in- 
stead of the actor. It seems clear and unanswerable, that 
a vicious act can do nothing toward securing the favour 
of God. And yet, those acts which must be performed in 
order to become holy, presuppose that he on whom they 
are enjoined is yet unholy. 

But can an unholy man do any thing acceptable to God? 
Certainly he can. Does not God address his commands 
to the unholy ? Does he not enjoin on them the perform- 
ance of certain actions ? But why command the unholy 
man to act in any way, if all his actions, while unholy, 
must necessarily be rebellious 1 Would it not be more, 
much more consistent with reason, to enjoin a total sus- 
pension of action until he has become holy ? And even 
then there would be the same difficulty, because the volun- 
tary suspension of all action, supposing it possible, would 
be the act of an unholy man. The difficulty lies as much 
in the way of the performance of one act, as a succession 
of acts. 

If no act performed by an unholy man can be accepta- 
ble to God, it will follow, either that God does not require 



158 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

of the unholy man any effort to become holy, or that he 
requires him to be holy before he makes the effort to be- 
come so, which is absurd ; or that he requires him to per- 
form acts, in order to become holy, which are unacceptable 
to him ; or, in other words, he requires that which he at 
the same time condemns : he requires a man to sin in or- 
der to obtain forgiveness and regeneration. 

But if, as New Divinity affirms, one single act of the 
mind changes a man from an impenitent rebel to a Chris- 
tian ; if the first act of the mind which conforms to the 
law of God constitutes or presupposes regeneration ; if it 
be no matter, as we are assured by the advocates of this 
system, what the particular exercise may be, we must pre- 
pare ourselves to admit the following consequences : — 

First : That it is not necessary for the sinner to confess 
his sins, in order to salvation. Because the confession 
of sin plainly implies the previous acts of repentance for 
sin and the purpose to forsake it. Who would not be 
shocked at the thought of an entirely impenitent man ad- 
dressing to the great and incensed Jehovah an enumera- 
tion of his crimes — confession we could not call it — and 
that too, without any design of forsaking them ? Such a 
course would require uncommon hardihood in iniquity. 
But if there be any degree of repentance — if the purpose 
to forsake sin has been formed — the confession is unne- 
cessary. The man is a Christian without it. 

Again : We must suppose, either that the purpose to 
forsake sin and serve God is formed while a man is wholly 
impenitent, and is therefore one of his impenitent acts, or 
that such a purpose is preceded by repentance. But if it 
be preceded by repentance, it is, according to this theory, 
unnecessary. The man is a Christian without it. 

We are led to this consequence by another process. 
No man can purpose to forsake his sins, and devote him- 
self to the service of God, without previously exercising 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 159 

faith. He must believe in the existence of God, and that 
he has established and maintains a moral government, and 
that the divine government makes this purpose his duty. 
But the doctrine of New Divinity is, that the very first act 
of faith makes a man a Christian. This purpose is, there- 
fore, not necessary to his becoming one. He is a Chris- 
tian without it. 

According to this doctrine, it is not necessary to perform 
those exercises which are denominated coming unto God. 
looking unto God, or seeking God, in order to be saved. 
All these acts presuppose faith in God. The apostle says, 
" He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and 
that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
But the first act of faith makes or proves a man a Chris- 
tian. He is, therefore, a Christian before he comes unto 
God, looks unto him, or seeks him. 

It would not relieve the advocates of New Divinity from 
this embarrassment, to say, that a belief in the existence 
and government of God is not faith, or that it is not the 
faith which the law of God requires. It is. The apostle 
lays down the proposition, that " without faith it is im- 
possible to please God," and illustrates it by adding, "For 
he that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that 
he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 

Even suhnission is rendered unnecessary to regenera- 
tion by this new gospel, inasmuch as submission to God 
implies faith in him. 

But we have not yet fathomed this abyss of absurdity. 
Faith implies hearing, attention, and serious reflection. 
" How shall they believe on him of whom they have not 
heard," says the apostle. But hearing simply is not suffi- 
cient. There are those that hear, but so carelessly, as not 
to understand. There must be attention. These acts, we 
have seen, are required by the law of God. Now, if we 
suppose any of these exercises to be preceded by an act 



160 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

of faith, they are, of course, superseded by it, and are 
thereby rendered unnecessary. But if, on the other hand, 
they are supposed to precede faith, the faith which is pre- 
ceded by them is thereby rendered unnecessary to sal- 
vation. 

Let us now try the effect of this theory on the examples 
of conversion adduced in the last chapter. 

It renders the prayer of the publican wholly inappro- 
priate. He came to the temple to pray, and offered his 
petition, under the influence of a purpose to forsake his 
sins and obey God, or, without having formed any such 
purpose. If he came with the purpose of his mind un- 
changed with respect to his course of life, how shall we 
characterize his conduct ? Would not New Divinitv, at 
once, pronounce it hypocritical and rebellious ? But if, on 
the contrary, he came resolved to devote himself to the 
service of God, his prayer for mercy was wholly super- 
fluous. This mercy had already been extended to him. 
He was regenerated, and of course justified, before he 
prayed. 

Again : We must suppose, that when he sought the tem- 
ple of God, and addressed to him his prayer, he was, to 
some extent, penitent and believing, or wholly impenitent 
and unbelieving. If the former, he had the mercy for 
which he prayed, -and might have spared himself the anx- 
iety which he felt. If the latter, his whole conduct was 
hypocritical and rebellious. 

It convicts the answer of the apostles, to the inquiry of 
the jailer, of irrelevancy. We may affirm of him what we 
affirmed of the publican. He inquired what he should do 
to be saved, under the influence of a determination to do 
whatever God might require of him, or without such a 
determination. On either supposition the answer was 
irrelevant. If he had formed the purpose of obedience, 
he was already saved, and the answer of the apostle 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 161 

should have been to that effect. If otherwise, the proper 
answer would have been a rebuke for his insincerity and 
wickedness, and a solemn warning. On the Arminian 
theory, the answer of the apostle is easily justified. The 
jailer had already decided the great question — he was al- 
ready penitent and believing in some degree. But one 
single act of mind is not sufficient to change a sinner to a 
saint. The first exercises of penitence and faith are not 
enough. It still remained for him to believe — to trust in 
the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Compare this theory with St. Paul's conversion. On 
the supposition, that, when he inquired, " Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do," his mind was made up to do the will 
of Christ, which was unquestionably the case, we must 
conclude that the great spiritual change had already taken 
place. He was already a Christian, and the direction 
which Ananias gave him, to wash away his sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord, came too late. He had already 
washed away his sins. The bloody persecutor was made 
a child of God, before he left the scene of his mysterious 
arrest, by that one act, which is presupposed by the ques- 
tion, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" 

The conduct of the psalmist, as a penitent, is utterly 
unaccountable, if this doctrine of New Divinity be true. 
His prayer for pardon and renovation is appropriate, only 
on the supposition that he was unpardoned and unrenewed. 
But if this were his condition, it was because he had not 
yet purposed to forsake his sins. What propriety, then, 
could there be in his apparently solemn confession of sin, 
his professed sorrow on account of it, and his repeated 
prayers for forgiveness ? Would not this representation 
of the case place him in the predicament of a downright 
hypocrite ? If, on the contrary, he had decided this im- 
portant point, he was already in possession of that, the 
supposed absence of which he so feelingly deplores, and 



162 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

for which he so earnestly and importunately prays. Either 
New Divinity is wrong, or this whole psalm is calculated 
to make false impressions. 

The dangerous practical tendency of a doctrine which 
leads to such theoretical consequences, must be alarmingly 
apparent. 

Perhaps it may be said, in reply to this suggestion, that 
when the sinner "yields one point to God's authority, he 
is ready to yield all. When he changes his mind and 
obeys in one thing, because it is God's will, he will obey 
in other things, so far as he sees it to be God's will." 
This, it will be remembered, is asserted by Mr. Finney. 
Were this doctrine true, the interests of morality and piety 
would be as effectually secured by this theory as by any 
other. But it is not true ; and we are astonished that 
any man should think of asserting it. We grant that the 
sinner who yields one point may go on and yield all ; but 
that he will as a matter of course, we deny. Mr. Finney 
preaches perfect obedience, in this instance, to some pur- 
pose. The sinner who submits to God in one single in- 
stance not only may, but will, therefore, submit to him in 
every instance ! 

This strange doctrine is plainly contradicted by these 
words of the apostle to the Galatians : " Ye did run well ; 
who did hinder you, that ye should not obey the truth ?" 
chap, v, 7. We could multiply such citations to a great 
extent, but it is unnecessary. These words plainly imply 
that one point, at least, had been yielded to God's au- 
thority ; but the persons to whom they were addressed, 
had paused in their career of obedience. 

Mr. Finney must surrender this doctrine, or, to be con- 
sistent, he must conclude that David had never yielded one 
point to God's authority when he committed the transgres- 
sion with Uriah's wife ; — that Peter had never yielded one 
point to God's authority when he denied his Lord with 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 163 

cursing and swearing. And no reason can be assigned, 
why this turning aside from the path of obedience may not 
take place as easily in the earlier stages of submission to 
divine authority, as at a later period. 

The Scriptures present numerous examples in direct 
contradiction to Mr. Finney's assertion. While many of 
the Jews refused to believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, 
Simon the sorcerer believed, and submitted to Christian 
baptism. He yielded that point to God's authority. And 
yet, so far was he from being converted, and ready to yield 
every other point, that he brought on himself that severe 
rebuke from the apostle, " Thy money perish with thee," 
&c. While many refuse to hear the word of God, others 
readily yield that point. They become hearers of the word. 
This is their character. But they may go no further. 
They may be like unto a man beholding his natural face 
in a glass, and going away and straightway forgetting what 
manner of man he was. We are admonished to be not 
only hearers, but doers of the word : " For not the hear- 
ers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the 
law shall be justified." The parable of the sower was 
specially designed to illustrate this point : " Hear, there- 
fore, the parable of the sower. When any one heareth 
the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then 
cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which 
was sown in his heart. This is he which receive th seed 
by the way-side. But he that receive th the word into 
stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and 
anon with joy receiveth it. Yet hath he not root in him- 
self, but dureth for awhile ; for when tribulation or perse- 
cution ariseth, because of the word, he is offended." In 
this case, the word is not only heard, but received with 
joy ; but this does not necessarily imply a readiness to 
yield every point. 

The case of the young man who came to our Lord to 



] 64 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

inquire what he should do to inherit eternal life, is in 
point. It is thus related by St. Mark, chap, x : " And 
when he was gone forth into the way, there came one run- 
ning, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, 
what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? And Je- 
sus said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? There is 
none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the com- 
mandments : Do not commit adultery ; Do not kill ; Do 
not steal ; Do not bear false witness ; Defraud not ; Honor 
thy father and thy mother. And he answered and said 
unto him, Master, all these things have I observed from 
my youth. Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him; and 
said unto him, One thing thou lackest : go thy way, sell 
whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
have treasure in heaven ; and come and take up the cross 
and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went 
away grieved, for he had great possessions." 

Will any one contend that this man had yielded no one 
point to divine authority, — that he was a rebel " total and 
unqualified," — that when he approached our Lord, run- 
ning and kneeling down, he was wholly impenitent and 
unbelieving ? We presume not. Had this been the case, 
our Lord would not have answered him as he did ; nor 
would he have entertained that special regard for him 
which is indicated. Instead of telling him that he lacked 
one thing, and stating that one thing to be a readiness to 
relinquish his possessions, he would have rebuked him as 
John rebuked the scribes and Pharisees who came to his 
baptism, and as he himself rebuked them on a certain 
occasion. Besides, the declaration " One thing thou lack- 
est," cannot be construed to mean that he lacked every 
thing that was necessary. It evidently concedes, that 
while there was a deficiency, he had done part of what 
was required. It is remarkable that Matthew represents 
the Saviour as saying to him, — " If thou wilt be perfect, go 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 165 

and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
have treasure in heaven : and come and follow me." This 
accidental variation in the phraseology cannot be supposed 
to include a variation in the sense. What, then, does the 
language of Matthew import ? Plainly this : If thou wilt 
do all that is required of thee — if thou wilt fulfil perfectly 
the terms of thy salvation, thou must go one step further. 

This narrative is decidedly and pointedly at vari- 
ance with the principles of New Divinity, which require 
us to suppose, either, that this young man was entirely 
and unqualifiedly impenitent and rebellious when he came 
to Christ, and must, therefore, have been playing the hypo- 
crite, or that he was already a Christian ; both of which 
suppositions are manifestly false. 

It may be supposed that the one-single-act theory is 
supported by the fact, that the blessing of the divine favour 
is frequently connected, by promise, with several of those 
acts separately, which we have specified as necessary 
thereto. For instance, it is said, " Hear, and your souls 
shall live." " He that believeth shall be saved." " They 
that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." " If 
we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us 
our sins," &c. 

But this fact would not sustain such an inference. It 
is not hearing simply, or believing simply, or praying 
simply, or confessing simply, that is contemplated by these 
passages. All these exercises must have certain qualifi- 
cations to render them effectual ; and the terms are fre- 
quently used to imply, not merely the simple exercise, 
but the exercise with its essential qualifications. Praying 
aright, implies several other exercises. So does the 
strong faith which is requisite. These exercises react 
on each other, promoting the necessary maturity in each 
and all of them ; so that he that prayeth, or believeth, or 
confesseth, or repenteth in the manner required, will be 



166 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 



saved. But then, the performance of any one of these 
acts, as is ultimately required, implies the performance of 
all the rest ; so that he who does not hear, and repent, 
and confess, and believe, will not be saved. 



CHAPTER XV. 

REGENERATION CONTINUED. 

The views of regeneration which have been shown to 
belong to the system of New Divinity, evidently include 
the doctrine, that the sinner regenerates himself. Let it be 
granted that one simple act of the sinner's mind consti- 
tutes the great change, and that the sinner is able and re- 
quired, to perform that act, and the inference will be in- 
evitable that every converted man has converted himself. 
The supposition that God regenerates the sinner, would 
involve the absurdity, that the voluntary act of the sinner 
is the act of God. This doctrine, also, is, in many in- 
stances, distinctly and boldly promulgated. Take a few 
examples. Mr. Finney, in his sermon on " Sinners Bound 
to Change their own Hearts," says, " The fact is, that the 
actual turning or change is the sinner's own act" — p. 20. 
Again : " This subject shows also that if the sinner ever 
has a new heart, he must obey the command, and make it 
himself" — p. 24. Again : " Sinner, instead of waiting and 
praying for God to change your heart, you should at once 
summon up your powers, put forth the effort, and change 
the governing purpose of your mind." — p. 37. 

In the passage quoted from the work of Doctor Skinner 
and President Beecher, in the twelfth chapter, to which 
the reader is referred, we are told, that "becoming 
religious," which is nothing more nor less than being con- 
verted to God, bom again, or regenerated, is a voluntary 



NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 167 

act of the sinner's mind — that he is required to perform 
it — that the performance of it requires no length of time, 
no protracted effort — that it may be done by him at this 
time and in this place — and he is to be warned against 
leaving the place until he has performed it. What is this 
but self-conversion ? 

Doctor Lansing asserts this doctrine in his sermon on 
" The Inability of Sinners Voluntary." He remarks, 
" A moral change is necessary ; but a moral change is 
nothing more than a change of will, purpose, or inclina- 
tion ; and it is this change that God, by the mouth of the 
prophet, commands the sinner to operate for himself ] when 
he says, 6 Make you a new heart, and a new spirit.' 
* Cleanse your hearts, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, 
ye double-minded.'" — Sermons, p. 154. 

But do they never attribute the change to God ? Yes, 
frequently, and in the highest style of Calvinism, as we 
shall show hereafter. Indeed, New Divinity is contradic- 
tion itself reduced to a science. They also ascribe the 
change to the preacher and to the word. Mr. Finney under- 
takes to explain the co-operation of these several agen- 
cies ; but the production of the change, essentially, is 
ascribed to the sinner. The influence of the Spirit of 
God, like that of the minister and the word, is restricted 
to mere persuasion or inducement. " The fact is," says 
Mr. F., " that the actual turning, or change, is the sinner's 
own act. The agent who induces him, is the Spirit of 
God. A secondary agent is the preacher, or individual 
that presents the truth. The truth is the instrument or 
motive wmich the Spirit uses to induce the sinner to 
turn." In pursuing his illustration, he adds, " Now, in 
speaking of this change, it is perfectly proper to say that 
the Spirit turned him, just as you would say of a man, 
who had persuaded another to change his mind on the 
subject of politics, that he had converted him, and brought 



168 NEW DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

him over. It is also proper to say that the truth convert- 
ed him ; as in a case where the political sentiments of a 
man were changed by a certain argument, we should say 
that argument brought him over. So also, with perfect 
propriety, may we ascribe the change to the living preach- 
er, or to him who had presented the motives ; just as we 
should say of a lawyer who had prevailed in his argument 
with a jury, he has got his case, he has converted the 
jury. It is also with the same propriety ascribed to the 
individual himself, whose heart is changed; we should 
say that he had changed his mind, he has come over, he 
has repented. Now, it is strictly true, and true in the 
most absolute and highest sense, the act is his own act, 
the turning is his own turning, while God, by the truth, 
has induced him to turn ; still it is strictly true that he has 
turned, and has done it himself. Thus you see the sense 
in which it is the work of God, and also the sense in 
which it is the sinner's own work. The Spirit of God, 
by the truth, influences the sinner to change, and in this 
sense is the efficient cause of the change. But the sinner 
actually changes, and is therefore himself, in the most pro- 
per sense, the author of the change." — p. 22. 

The reader, with these explanations at hand, need have 
no difficulty in understanding what they mean, when they 
assert, with all the semblance of orthodoxy, that the Spirit 
of God is the " efficient cause" of regeneration. They 
mean nothing more than that the Holy Spirit converts the 
sinner, just as one man converts another when he per- 
suades him to change his politics ; or as a lawyer converts 
the jury when he gains his cause ; while the sinner is in 
the " most absolute and highest sense," 6 - in the most pro- 
per sense," the author of the change. 

It is not necessary, in order to avoid this doctrine, to 
deny that the sinner has any thing to do in securing a 
change of heart. He is required to perform certain condi- 



NEW DIVINITY— REGENERATION. 



169 



tional and preparatory acts, in view of which, God justi- 
fies and regenerates him. When he is called upon to 
make himself a new heart, the import of the obligation is, 
that he shall perform the prescribed condition ; while the 
work of regeneration — of renewing the heart — is immedi- 
ately and exclusively the work of God, as the Evangelist 
John affirms ; — " But to as many as received him, to them 
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name : which were born not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 

The gross inconsistency in which Mr. F. involves him- 
self, in exhibiting the doctrine of self-conversion, has 
been noticed in the discussion of another topic. To make 
out its practicability, he resolves the heart into a volunta- 
ry act or state of the mind. But this is a somewhat ad- 
venturous movement, both in divinity and philosophy. The 
Scriptures, which are the standard of Christian theology, 
and are unquestionably based on the true philosophy of 
mind, speak of the heart as belonging to the constitution 
of our nature, and as a source of our voluntary actions. 
To seem, therefore, to secure the suffrages of Scripture 
and reason, he defines the heart to be " that deep-seated. 
but voluntary preference of the mind, which lies back of all 
its other voluntary affections and emotions, and from 
which they take their character." Now the difficulty of 
self-conversion, supposing this very accommodating defi- 
nition of the term heart to be correct, which however is 
denied, is this : this " voluntary preference of the mind" 
which constitutes the heart, is so "deep-seated" that it 
"lies back of all its other" voluntary actions, and gives 
them "their character." And yet, out of this preference, 
another volition is supposed to arise, which entirely 
changes the character of the preference from which 
it springs, and from which it first takes its character. 
This is the Ethiopian changing his skin to some purpose ! 

8 



170 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

MORAL SUASION. 

Another distinctive feature of the New School theory- 
is found in the doctrine, that the Holy Ghost, in the rege- 
neration of a sinner, employs no other influence than that of 
persuasion. 

This view of the mode of the Holy Spirit's operations 
naturally results from the doctrines of ability and regene- 
ration, which we have endeavoured to refute. If one 
single act of the sinner's mind constitutes regeneration, 
and he has a natural ability to perform that act at any 
time, it is plain that all which is necessary to be done for 
him, in order to make him a Christian, is to persuade him 
to perform the act in question. And as no other influence 
is necessary, the Holy Spirit cannot be supposed to exert 
any other. 

This doctrine is frequently inculcated. We will present 
a few examples. 

The author of " Views in Theology" says, "As far then 
as human experience extends, there is no other medium 
known of influencing the voluntary actions of mankind 
than that of moral suasion" — Part iii, p. 71. 

Again : "All the means employed by the moral govern- 
ment of God to influence the voluntary actions of men, are 
the means of moral suasion. Their whole agency is ex- 
pended in counteracting temptations by presenting induce- 
ments to holiness. So far therefore as that goes, it appears 
that no other medium is employed by the Most High to 
influence the conduct of men. — p. 72. 

Again : " This follows from the fact that, as has been 
shown, the influence of motives is the sole instrument of 
determining the manner in which men act in regard to 
their obligations." — p. 77. 

Again : " We are thus clearly taught in the volume of 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 171 

inspiration, that the Spirit does exert an agency on the 
mind, that is employed in the communication to it of truth, 
and through that medium convicts, renews, and sanctifies 
it, and thus produces all the various classes of effects that 
are ever in the Scriptures attributed to his agency ; and 
are taught it in statements and representations — not that 
are restricted by any reference to particular individuals, 
or circumscribed by applications to subordinate effects, — 
but that are wholly exempt from such limitations, and that 
accordingly by all just laws of construction, must be re- 
ceived as descriptive of the only influence he employs in 
producing these effects." — No. 11, Vol. iii, p. 285. 

Mr. Finney says, in his sermon on " Sinners Bound to 
Change their own Hearts," "You see from this subject the 
nature of the Spirit's agency. That he does not act by 
direct physical contact upon the mind, but that he uses 
his truth as his sword to pierce the sinner, and that the 
motives presented in the gospel are the instruments he 
uses to change the sinner's heart. Some have doubted this, 
and supposed that it is equivalent to denying the Spirit's 
agency altogether to maintain that he converts sinners 
by motives. Others have denied the possibility of chang- 
ing the heart by motives. But did not the serpent change 
Adam's heart by motives ; and cannot the Spirit of God, 
with infinitely higher motives, exert as great a power over 
mind as he can 1 Can the old serpent change a heart from 
a perfectly holy to a perfectly sinful one, by the power of 
motives, and cannot the infinitely wise God do as much 
as Satan did ?" 

In this very extraordinary passage it is clearly incul« 
cated, that the change which takes place in regeneration 
is strictly analogous to that which takes place in apostacy, 
and that the same mode of influence, namely, persuasion, 
by the presentation of motives, is as competent to regene- 
rate as it is to corrupt. 



172 NEW DIVINITY— MORAL SUASION, 

Mr. Duffield says, " In what his efficacy consists, is a 
question of deep interest, and in attempting to meet it, it 
becomes necessary to inquire whether the Spirit's agency 
is in the suasive influence of truth, or by some act of 
physical power irrespective of the appropriate influence 
of truth." — p. 481. In another place he remarks, "If 
you hope for a mighty creative power to be exerted upon 
you irrespective of your voluntary exercise, your hopes 
are baseless and visionary. The Spirit's efficacious 
agency is through the suasive influence of truth, and if 
you resist it, you resist the only means that you or any 
one else can hope to be exerted for you, to bring you to 
repentance." — p. 515. 

But do they not explicitly and formally disavow the doc- 
trine, that the Holy Spirit regenerates by " a persuasive 
exhibition of the truth analogous to the influence which 
one man exerts over the mind of another ?" Do they not 
declare it to be their belief that regeneration is " produced 
by the special operations of the Holy Spirit V Do they 
not assert that the Spirit's influences are supernatural, in 
reply to the charge of holding that those influences are 
restricted to moral suasion ? They do. But they do not, 
nevertheless, deny the doctrine with which they are 
charged. The word " special" is a technicality well un- 
derstood among them. They explain it so as to make it 
agree perfectly with the " moral-suasion" theory. 

The author of" Views in Theology" tells us that "the 
distinction of the influences of the Divine Spirit into the 
classes of common and special ; restraining, enlightening, 
regenerating, sanctifying, and comforting, is to be made 
solely on the ground that they occasion such diversified 
effects ; not on the ground that they differ in their nature. 
For as his influences are all employed in presenting mo- 
tives to the eye, they are of course always in kind the 
same. The difference in the effects of his agency, arises 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 173 

from the difference in the motives through which he occa- 
sions those effects." — Part iii, p. 89. 

Mr. Duffield contends stoutly for a " special" influence, 
But his special influence does not differ in kind from that 
which one man exerts upon another. He says, imme- 
diately after giving an illustration of its specialty, " Shall 
we suppose that God cannot do with sinners, in reference 
to himself, what one man has done with another ? — That a 
physical efficiency is necessary to make the sinner willing 
to confide in Him, and repent of his rebellion ! To sup- 
pose so is, in fact, to attribute a moral influence to man 
more potent than that which, in such a case, it would be 
requisite God should exert. It would be in effect to say 
that man can subdue his foe, and by an appropriate moral 
influence convert him into a friend ; but that God cannot 
convert his enemy, and bring him to believe, except he 
puts forth his physical power, and literally create him over 
again."— p. 492. 

So with the term " supernatural." It has its explana- 
tion or explanations. But they all accord with the doc- 
trine of regeneration by moral suasion. 

The writer of " Views in Theology" says, " Restraint, 
conviction, sanctification, and comfort, when they result 
immediately from the influences of the Holy Spirit, are super- 
natural effects, in the same sense that regeneration is. 
The term is to be employed simply to express the fact, 
that the effect to which it relates is occasioned by the 
agency of the Spirit. It is peculiarly applicable to rege- 
neration only on the ground that it never takes place ex- 
cept by the Spirit's influence. The other effects undoubt- 
edly do." — Part iii, p. 89. 

According to this explanation, it is sufficient to consti- 
tute any effect supernatural that it is produced by the Holy 
Spirit. The same effect produced by other influence is 
not supernatural ; and the term, when applied to the 



174 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

Spirit's influences, merely expresses the fact, that it is 
his influence, without determining its mode. 

Mr. Duffield, however, seems to take a somewhat dif- 
ferent view of the subject. " To say that the power oT 
the Holy Ghost, in producing hope and faith, is his crea- 
tive efficacy, lodging in the soul, 6 a principle or disposition' 
that causes such exercises, is saying no more of it than 
what may be said of his power in creating the instincts 7 
&c, of animals, and thus making his work in regenera- 
tion altogether natural, that is, like that in nature, not su- 
pernatural, which it is in fact — an influence exerted in 
pursuance of special design, and not uniformly and infalli- 
bly, according to fixed laws of nature." — p. 498. 

According to this reasoning, the influence of the Spirit 
is not supernatural if it goes beyond moral suasion. But 
surely, these men are adventurous polemics, to undertake 
to convince us, that while mere persuasion is a supernatu- 
ral process, there is nothing supernatural in creation. Not- 
withstanding the discrepancy between these writers, they 
both aim at reconciling supernatural influence with mere 
moral suasion. 

This doctrine must necessarily share a similar fate with 
those which we have already examined, inasmuch as it 
grows out of, and depends upon them for support. 

It is a valid objection, that it determines so positively 
and specifically the mode of the Holy Spirit's operations 
in regeneration — a subject which the Saviour declared to 
be wrapped up in impenetrable mystery. 

The doctrine is supposed to be taught in those passages 
of Scripture which speak of the instrumentality of truth in 
asinner's conversion : such for instance as these, " Of his 
own will begat he us with the word of truth" " Being bora 
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the 
word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." " Sanctify 
them through thy truth. Now are ye clean through the 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 



175 



word which I have spoken unto you," &c. But the ques- 
tion is not, whether the truth is employed in conversion 
and sanctirlcation, but whether every other influence is 
►excluded. These, and similar passages, no more prove 
that regeneration is accomplished by moral suasion merely, 
than those which attribute the production of the heavens 
and the earth to the word of God, prove that he created 
the universe by moral suasion. It is said, " By the word 
of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of 
them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the wa- 
ters of the sea together as a heap : he layeth up the depth 
in store-houses. Let all the earth fear the Lord : let all 
the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him, for he 
spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast." 
" And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." 
" Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed 
by the word of God, so that things which are seen were 
not made of things which do appear. For this they wil- 
lingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens 
were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and 
in the water : whereby the world that then was, being 
overflowed with water, perished : but the heavens and the 
earth which are now, by the same word, are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdi- 
tion of ungodly men." Here both the creation and con- 
servation of the world are attributed to the word of God ; 
but will any one infer from this fact that no other influence 
was exerted in their production than that of moral suasion ? 
The resurrection of the body is also ascribed to the word 
of God. "Yerily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is com- 
ing, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 
Son of God; and they that hear shall live. Marvel not 
at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that are 
in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth." 
Will he then raise the dead by moral suasion ? 



176 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 



We have seen that the conversion of the soul, the crea- 
tion of the world, and the resurrection of the body, are all 
attributed to the word of God. Let us now inquire whe- 
ther the change which takes place in the soul is not, like 
the creation of the world, and the resurrection of the body, 
ascribed to a power distinct from the word of God. The 
Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians thus : " For 
our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in 
power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." 
Whatever the power may have been which accompanied 
the word, it is clearly distinguished from the word. To 
the Ephesians he says, speaking of the gospel, "Whereof 
I was made a minister according to the gift of the grace 
of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power" 
In the same chapter he says, " Now, unto him that is able 
to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or 
think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him 
be glory in the Church by Jesus Christ, throughout all 
ages, world without end/' Here " the power that work- 
eth in us," is evidently contemplated as identical wdth that 
by which he is able to do all things. In his prayer 
for the Ephesians, in the first chapter of his epistle, he 
clearly identifies the power by which believers are re- 
newed and sustained, with that by which he raised Christ 
from the dead. But it is not to the word of God that he 
attributes these effects in this instance, but to " the ex- 
ceeding greatness of his power !" and " the working of his 
mighty power." Peter, in his second epistle, says, " Ac- 
cording as his divine power hath given unto us all things 
that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge 
of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue." These 
texts may serve as a specimen of the class to which they 
belong. 

It may be objected here, that although these passages 
attribute the work of spiritual renovation to the power of 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 177 

God, they do not determine the kind of power — the mode 
of operation, &c, whether it is the power of " moral sua- 
sion," or power literally. To this it is replied that the 
language in these passages is equally strong and definite 
with that which is any where employed in attributing cre- 
ation to the power of God. They speak of his " power, 
his divine power, his mighty power, the exceeding great- 
ness of his power." Where do the inspired writers use 
stronger or more definite language with respect to the 
creation of the world ? It is not necessary to cite passages 
on this point. We feel assured that every one that might 
be adduced would be equally liable to the charge of in- 
definiteness, as to the kind of power exerted ; and that the 
question might be raised, with equal propriety, so far as 
the language is concerned, whether creation was by moral 
suasion or " physical" power. Will it be rejoined, that 
the nature of the work determines what kind of power was 
concerned in creation 1 True ; very true. And the nature 
of human depravity, and of the change effected in spiritual 
renovation, determines that the mode of the Spirit's influ- 
ence must be something more than mere persuasion. 

W e have not undertaken, in these reasonings, to deter- 
mine specifically what is the mode of the Holy Spirit's 
operation. Our object is simply to show how groundless 
is the supposition that it consists wholly in moral sua- 
sion — a supposition, which, it is presumed, no one would 
ever have professed to derive from the oracles of God, 
without having first adopted a system of theology or philo- 
sophy which imperatively demanded it. 

8* 



178 



NEW DIVINITY- 



' MORAL SUASIONV 



CHAPTER XVIL 

MORAL SUASION CONTINUED. 

In the argument of the preceding chapter it was proved 
that, so far as the language of Scripture is concerned, 
there is the same ground for concluding that the world 
was created, and that the dead will be raised, by moral 
suasion, as there is for the doctrine that the Holy Spirit 
regenerates the sinner by moral suasion. 

It appears to be assumed by the advocates of the moral- 
suasion theory, that, in case it is rejected, the only remain- 
ing alternative is, that of holding that the Holy Spirit re- 
generates independently of the truth. This is not the case. 
Sufficient reasons may be assigned for the influence of 
motives in the sinner's conversion, while the direct and 
immediate operations of the Spirit of God, on the heart, 
may be equally necessary. It is true, that Calvinists of 
the Old School maintain that the truth has nothing to do 
with regeneration ; that its office is to develop the princi- 
ples implanted by regeneration ; that, previous to regenera- 
tion, its only effect is that of irritating the spirit of rebellion. 
It is this view which gives to the reasonings of the New 
School party their plausibility and effect. But neither of 
the parties is right. They occupy extreme positions. The 
truth resides in the midway territory, which both have 
abandoned to Methodism. 

But how, according to the doctrine of conversion by 
persuasion merely, can the influences of the Holy Spirit 
be at all necessary ? Is it not the office of the written 
word and of the preacher, to persuade men ? Perhaps it 
will be said, that the persuasions of the written word, and 
of the minister, invariably fail without the additional per- 
suasions of the Holy Ghost. But whence arises the uni- 
form failure of these instrumentalities and agencies? Is 
if because there is not a sufficiency of truth and motive in 



NEW DIVINITY- 



' MORAL SUASION. 



179 



the word, and at the command of the minister? Does the 
Holy Spirit make up the deficiency, by revealing truths 
and presenting motives, which are not contained in the 
Bible ? To suppose this, would not only be to reflect on 
the word of God, as inadequate to the ends for w T hich it 
was given, but likewise to run into the further difficulty of 
supposing that God makes immediate revelations of truth 
to rebellious sinners, beyond what is contained in the sa- 
cred oracles. Compare these propositions — 1st, that no 
other influence is employed in regenerating the sinner 
than that of persuasion ; 2d, that the sinner is fully able, 
at any time, without the grace of God, to yield to the in- 
fluence of persuasion and become a Christian ; and 3d, 
that the minister of the gospel is in possession of all the 
truth and motive, employed in the work of conversion, and 
there is, to say the least, a strong tendency to the in- 
ference that the influence of the Holy Spirit is not abso- 
lutely necessary, and that one man may convert another 
in the strictest sense of the word. 

And although this inference may be disclaimed by the 
advocates of the theory under consideration, it cannot be 
denied that their instructions, in many instances, are cal- 
culated to make the impression that it is in the power of 
one man to convert another. In the work by Doctor 
Skinner and President Beecher, to which we have several 
times referred, there is the following direction, " Actually 
intend, by the divine blessing, to convert sinners. It is 
possible to converse on the subject of religion, without 
actually intending to achieve the salvation of souls. It is 
possible also to have this intention along with so little 
firmness, as to make all our efforts unavailing. We must 
intend, by the grace of God, actually to achieve the conver- 
sion of the impenitent ; and not only so, we must fully and 
decidedly intend to do it. It must be the fixed purpose of 
our soul." 



180 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

We have no desire to conceal the fact that the Scrip- 
tures do, in some passages, speak of Christians as con- 
verting sinners from the error of their ways ; but they 
require us to understand that the agency of Christians in 
this work is subordinate to that of God ; and that the 
work is, after all, strictly and properly the work of God. 
They carefully guard us against the doctrine that it is pro- 
perly the work of man. " But unto as many as received 
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, 
even to them that believe on his name ; which were born, 
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God." And there is no difficulty in supposing 
that one man may persuade another to perform those acts, 
which are conditional to his regeneration, and thus exer- 
cise a very important instrumentality, while the work of 
regeneration itself, may belong wholly to God, if it be al- 
lowed that some other influence is necessary and actually 
exerted, besides that of persuasion. But if no other influ- 
ence than that of persuasion is necessary to the sinner's 
conversion, we cannot see how the deduction can be 
fairly obviated, that the additional influences of the Holy 
Spirit are not necessary, but that one man is fully compe- 
tent to the conversion of another, without their inter- 
position. 

This doctrine presents to us another difficulty. If the 
conversion of the sinner is to be accomplished by moral 
suasion solely, and if the persuasions of the written word, 
and of the minister, are inadequate, we cannot understand 
how even the Holy Spirit can accomplish the task. Let 
us inquire, what is the difficulty which remains for the 
Holy Spirit to overcome 1 What is the cause of the uni- 
form failure of the word and the minister ? It is frequently 
intimated by the teachers of this doctrine, that while the 
Scriptures contain all the material of motive which is 
necessary for the purpose of conversion, provided the 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 181 

sinner would only attend to it, he invariably refuses the 
attention necessary, and that this is the cause of the 
failure. This is expressly affirmed by Mr. Hinton. He 
says, "If the faculty of attention (to use this phrase- 
ology) shows how a man maybe and do what he pleases, 
it will equally explain to us why, in so many instances, he 
is not what the state of things around him is adapted to 
make him ; why his conduct is so often at variance both 
with his interest and his duty. This melancholy result 
arises from inattention to the more serious objects set 
before him. He sees them, but does not regard them. 
The perception of them is momentary ; they are instantly 
forgotten, and therefore without influence. It matters not 
how momentous such things may be in themselves, nor 
how often they may be exhibited and perceived ; if no 
attention be paid to them, or if the attention they are 
adapted to excite be withheld, they can exert no power. 
Trifles lighter than air will outweigh the most solemn 
topics, if the former be intently dwelt upon, and the latter 
banished from the thoughts." — p. 96. 

Here we will venture to ask, since the subject is thus 
thrown open for inquiry, how the Holy, Spirit is to effect 
the object of fixing the attention of the sinner, if no other 
influence is to be employed, but that of truth and motive ? 
We are not at liberty to suppose that the divine agent 
accomplishes this object by revealing truth which is not 
contained in the Bible ; and which is superior to that 
which is found in the Bible, in its adaptation to the work. 
Such a doctrine would carry us out to the utmost limits of 
fanaticism. Will it be said, (as no one individual is sup- 
posed to be acquainted with all the truth which God has 
revealed,) that, the Holy Spirit has a wide range in pre 
senting to the mind that truth with which it was previously 
unacquainted, without going beyond the limits of Scrip- 
ture ? This suggestion, it is true, would avoid the diffi- 



182 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

culty of teaching that the Holy Spirit reveals truths, 
which are not in the Bible, but it is encumbered with 
serious embarrassments. It as certainly teaches the doc- 
trine of immediate revelation. The disclosure of the fact 
or proposition to the sinner, is as much a direct revelation 
as its disclosure to the prophet or apostle. And he may 
say of it what the Apostle Paul said of the gospel which 
he preached, when he asserted his inspiration, and vindi- 
cated his apostleship, " For I neither received it of man, 
neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ. 5 ' Indeed, to adopt this view, would be to take 
refuge in one of the most exceptionable tenets of Quaker- 
ism. It will be time enough to refute it in this connec- 
tion when it is actually proposed as the solution. At 
present we shall content ourselves with simply exhibiting 
it as an alternative. To avoid this alternative, we must 
suppose that the Holy Spirit presents to the mind, in the 
process of persuasion, such truths only as it has come in 
possession of by the usual means of information. If, then, 
the Holy Spirit presents directly to the mind of the sinner 
no other truths than those which have been presented by 
other means, and to which the sinner has all along refused 
his attention, we ask, what is there in the single circum- 
stance of their being presented directly by the Holy Spirit, 
which may be relied on to fix his attention ? Can he not 
as easily withhold it in the one case as in the other ? Is 
not the probability of his withholding it equal in both cases ? 
Has the rebellious sinner any special preference for the 
Holy Spirit, which lays the foundation of certainty that, 
while the truth will surely be neglected when presented 
by the minister, or read in the Bible, it will be instantly 
attended to when presented by the Holy Spirit ? 

Is it not just as certain that all the efforts of the Holy 
Spirit to excite attention will be defeated by a voluntary 
refusal on the part of the sinner, as that the efforts of the 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 183 

minister will be defeated ? Will it be said, at this point, 
that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and omniscient, and 
can therefore present the truth at the most favourable time, 
availing himself of the most propitious conjuncture of cir- 
cumstances ? We have only to suppose that the minister 
of the gospel shall happen to present it at such a time, and 
the services of the Holy Spirit may be dispensed with, in 
that instance at least. Perhaps it may be insisted on, 
that while the Holy Spirit makes no revelation of truth, 
he presents it in a clearer light than does the written 
word or the minister. This seems to be the view which 
Mr. Finney takes : " Having direct access to the mind, 
and knowing infinitely well the whole history and state of 
each individual sinner, he employs that truth which is best 
adapted to his particular case, and then sets it home with 
divine power. He gives it such vividness, strength, and 
power, that the sinner quails, and throws down his weapons 
of rebellion, and turns to the Lord. Under his influence 
the truth burns and cuts its way like fire. He makes the 
truth stand out in such aspects, that it crushes the proud- 
est man clown with the weight of a mountain. If men 
were disposed to obey God, the truth is given with suffi- 
cient clearness in the Bible ; and from preaching they 
could learn all that is necessary for them to know. But 
because they are disinclined to obey it, God clears it up 
before their minds, and pours in a blaze of convincing light 
upon their souls, which they cannot withstand, and they 
yield to it, and obey God, and are saved." Here the Holy 
Spirit is represented as making the truth effectual by giv- 
ing it " vividness, strength, and power," — by making it 
"stand out in such aspects," &c, — by clearing "it up 
before their minds," and pouring "in a blaze of convincing 
light upon their souls, which they cannot withstand." 

But here again we are in difficulties, on the supposition 
that no new truths are presented to the mind. How does 



184 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

the Holy Ghost make the truth so much clearer to the 
mind of the sinner, than when it comes from the pens of 
those who wrote and spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost, and who gave it, not in the words which 
man's wisdom, but the Holy Ghost taught them ? It must 
be remembered too, that the divine agent has the human 
mind to deal with. Suppose the sinner refuses his atten- 
tion to the truth, as he has done before, how much clearer 
will it be to him ? Besides, the effect of the truth, no mat- 
ter by whom it may be presented, must be modified by the 
condition of the mind, as to ignorance or intellectual im- 
provement. A proposition, presented to a cultivated 
mind, may strike it with much greater force than it would 
an uncultivated mind. How will the Holy Spirit go 
about making the proposition as clear to the man of 
uncultivated mind, as to the other ? And how will he pro- 
ceed to make it still clearer to the more intellectual man % 
Does the Holy Spirit give definitions of terms ? Does he 
resort to formal illustrations, such as are not contained in 
the word of God, or presented by the minister ? The only 
and universal obstacle to the success of the minister and 
the Scriptures, is supposed to be the indisposition of the 
sinner to obey, and the refusal of his attention ; and we 
wish to know how the Holy Spirit is to overcome these 
obstacles by merely presenting the same truths ? We can 
easily perceive that the Holy Spirit can arouse attention 
to the truth, if some other mode of influence than the mere 
presentation of truth be employed. And that he accom- 
plishes this object by some other mode of influence, we 
firmly believe. Indeed, the passage quoted from Mr. F. 
derives its plausibility from intimations which it incon- 
sistently contains, of the exertion of some other influence. 
He tells us that the Holy Spirit " employs that truth which 
is best adapted, &c, and then sets it home with divine 
power" and that " under his influence the truth burns and 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 185 

cuts its way like fire." Here is a power, an influence, 
spoken of, which does not belong intrinsically to the truth, 
no matter how clear it may be. It is a power distinct from 
the truth, and with which God " sets home" the truth — 
an influence, under which " the truth burns and cuts its 
way like fire." 

These difficulties are not unfelt by the advocates of the 
moral-suasion theory ; and hence, earnestly as they insist 
on conversion by the presentation of truth merely, in some 
instances, we find them in other instances contradicting 
themselves and each other, and acknowledging its inade- 
quacy ; and asserting the intervention of some additional 
influence. Mr. Duffield writes, " But is this all the influ- 
ence of the Spirit ? Does his influence extend no further 
than the mere exhibition, in the word, of motives, argu- 
ments, objects, and considerations, calculated to move the 
heart, and change the will ? The sacred Scriptures inti- 
mate something more than this. He does in this way 
strive with men universally, who hear the gospel, and 
sometimes with remarkable evidences of its influence, as 
in seasons of revival of religion, when almost every heart 
is made to quake, and every mind is impressed with the 
solemn conviction that God is in the midst of his people." 
—p. 482. 

Compare this passage with the quotations from the same 
author in the chapter immediately preceding, and the con- 
tradiction will be too apparent for denial. He there says, 
" If you hope for a mighty creative power to be exerted 
upon you irrespective of your voluntary exercise, your 
hopes are baseless and visionary. The Spirit's efficacious 
agency is through the suasive influence of truth, and if you 
resist it, you resist the only means that you or any one else 
can hope to be exerted for you to bring you to repentance." 
He here affirms, not only that the agency of the Spirit is 
through the suasive influence of truth, but likewise, that 



186 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

in resisting the influence of truth, the only means are re- 
sisted which God employs to bring sinners to repentance* 
We would also, at this point, remind the reader of the 
language already quoted from the author of " Views in 
Theology." "We are clearly taught in the volume of 
inspiration, that the Spirit does exert an agency in the 
mind that is employed in the communication to it of truth, 
and through that medium convicts, renews, and sanctifies 
it, and thus produces all the various classes of effects that 
are ever in the Scriptures attributed to his agency." This 
same doctrine is asserted by the editor of the New-York 
Observer, in the number dated August 11, 1837. "From 
another account it seems that tract distribution may be the 
means of a revival ; and from another, that the ordinary 
preaching of the gospel on the sabbath may have that 
honour. We are not therefore confined to any one sys- 
tem of means. The exhibition of divine truth, for the pur- 
pose of saving souls, seems to be the only indispensable 
requisite; and this may be successful, whatever may be 
the form of exhibition !" The assertion of an influence 
additional to the truth is no doubt compelled by the exi- 
gencies in which they find themselves involved. 

Mr. Hinton contends for an additional influence. He 
says, " The positions we have endeavoured, we trust suc- 
cessfully, to maintain in the preceding chapter are, first, 
that there is a personal and special influence of the Spirit 
superadditional to the word ; and secondly, that such an 
influence is actually exerted in the conversion of the un- 
renewed, as well as in the sanctification of the renewed 
heart." — p. 59. 

Let it not be supposed, however, that they have relin- 
quished the doctrine of conversion by persuasion merely. 
They caution their readers against such a supposition. 
The " superadditional" influence, whatever it may be, is 
represented as strictly analogous to that which one man 



NEW DIVINITY— MORAL SUASION. 18.7 

frequently exerts on another. "What we have main- 
tained," says Mr. H., " is, that attention to the word is 
induced otherwise than by the word itself, and that such 
inducement is to be attributed to the suasion of the Spirit 
of God. That there is ample foundation for the position, 
without exceeding the just analogy derived from the vari- 
ous modes of action of one human mind on another, we 
deem has been made apparent ; and if that analogy were 
even exceeded by the Almighty Father of spirits, we do 
not perceive that such influence would be justly chargea- 
ble with being irrational. When the objector is prepared 
to say the spirit of man never influenced his mind without 
w r ords, it will be time enough to admit the force of his 
objection to allow the Spirit of God an access to the mind 
distinct from the word of God." — p. 61. 

Perhaps the reader will be ready to inquire what this 
" superadditional" influence is. We will endeavour to en- 
lighten him, so far as we are enlightened, on the subject. 
Mr. Duffield says, " We see it in the impressions which 
a father has made upon his son, and trace its wondrous 
developments as that son may roam in distant lands." He 
speaks in this connection of " the winning influence of 
certain indications of affection, made by the twinklings of 
the eye, which rivet the heart." He tells us " there is a 
sort of sympathy between human spirits, which may be 
touched to produce emotion, with as much certainty as 
we can strike the chords of music, to secure the very 
sounds desired." And that "what, in these things we 
concede to man, must be attributed, in an infinitely greater 
degree, to that Spirit who searcheth the heart and trieth 
the reins of the children of men." — p. 485. 

Mr. Hinton remarks, on this point, u W r ho has not felt 
that the humble attitude and suppliant eye has a powerful 
influence to persuade, distinct from, though connected 
with the facts presented ; or that proud and haughty de- 



188 NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 

meanor induce the refusal of a request, which would other- 
wise have been cheerfully granted. If spirit, when clogged 
with mortal clay, has such methods of access to its fellow- 
spirit, who will be found bold enough to deny that methods 
equally silent, rational, and efficacious are possessed by 
that Spirit which breathed into us the living soul ?" — p. 29. 

It would seem, then, that the Holy Spirit fixes the at- 
tention of the sinner, and regenerates him; and thus makes 
up for the inadequacy of the truth, by making certain im- 
pressions which correspond with " the impressions which 
a father has made upon his son ;" by " the winning influ- 
ence of certain indications of affection" corresponding 
with those " made by the very twinklings of the eye ;" by 
availing himself of some " sort of sympathy" between him- 
self and the human spirit, " which may be touched to pro- 
duce designed emotions ;" and by some movement analo- 
gous to " the humble attitude, and suppliant eye," which 
have " a powerful influence to persuade." But he is not 
allowed to exert any other influence than that of persua- 
sion after all ; and his superiority over man, in the work 
of conversion, is to be attributed to his possessing these 
additional means of persuasion in a higher degree. 

Such subterfuges as these, show plainly that those who 
resort to them are hard run. They are compelled to ac- 
knowledge, notwithstanding their positive assertions to 
the contrary, that the truth alone is inadequate to the sin- 
ner's conversion, and yet they are required to keep within 
the limits of mere suasion. They think, therefore, to sup- 
ply the great desideratum by undefined " impressions," 
and the influence of sympathy, and looks, and attitudes, 
and take the responsibility of asserting, without a hint of 
authority from the Scriptures, that such is the influence 
which the Holy Spirit exerts. 

The reader will, of course, form his own conclusions, 
but with me, the difficulty specified at the commencement 



NEW DIVINITY MORAL SUASION. 189 

of the argument, remains in unabated force. I cannot 
see, if the written word and the ministry are insufficient 
for the conversion of the sinner, and no other influence 
be allowed than that of persuasion, how even the Holy 
Spirit can accomplish the work. The explanation just 
noticed is too futile for refutation. 

Mr. Dunield intimates that there is something more than 
even the additional influence, described by him in the 
passages we have quoted. But what this " agency pre- 
cisely is," he will not presume to say. He does not fail, 
however, to caution us against the supposition that it is 
any thing more than persuasion. His caution in not at- 
tempting to define this further agency, is commendable. 
He has now arrived at a point where he will do well to 
hide himself in the mysteriousness of his subject, and 
issue, from his concealment, a suitable rebuke to those 
who may impiously adventure to inquire into the mode of 
the Holy Spirit's operations. 

We will conclude this chapter by noticing the argument 
contained in the quotation from Mr. Finney. He asks, 
"But did not the serpent change Adam's heart by motives; 
and cannot the Spirit of God, with infinitely higher mo- 
tives, exert as great a power over mind as he can ? Can 
the old serpent change a heart from a perfectly holy to a 
perfectly sinful one, by the power of motives, and cannot 
the infinitely wise God do as much as Satan did ?" To 
this we answer, that, although Satan did corrupt our first 
parents by arguments and motives, it does not follow that 
they could be regenerated by the same meanj. Who does 
not know that it takes a much less power to corrupt than 
it does to sanctify ? We have shown, we think, that it 
requires other influences to restore to holiness than mo- 
tives merely. Nor will it follow that God cannot " do 
as much as Satan did," because he cannot change a 
heart from a perfectly sinful one to a perfectly holy one ? 



190 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



by the power of motives. Does Mr. F. believe that Satan 
could have changed the heart of Adam to holiness again, 
by the power of motives, or by any power ? Would we not 
argue just as soundly as Mr. F., if we were to infer, that 
because a wicked man may corrupt a good man by mo- 
tives, therefore a good man may surely sanctify a bad man 
by motives ; and that, if this be not the case, the bad man 
can exert a greater power over mind than the good man, 
and thus relieve the Divine Being of the necessity of hav- 
ing any thing at all to do in the business ? 



CHAPTER XVIIL 

PRAYER. 

We have now fully entered on that part of the investi- 
gation to which we have looked forward, as, by its own 
nature, invested with the most stirring interest to every 
believer in the doctrines of Methodism. To this point we 
have approached by slow and cautious advances, so as to 
be satisfied that we have cleared our way before us, and 
trodden on firm ground. And we are now prepared to 
charge on New Divinity the sentiment, that for the sinner 
to pray to God for mercy, before he is regenerated, or, in 
other words, before he has become a Christian, is not only 
unnecessary, but actually rebellious. 

The doctrine results immediately from the positions we 
have just refuted. If one single act of the mind changes 
a man from an impenitent rebel to a Christian — if the very 
first act which conforms to the will of God, is that which 
secures or constitutes the great change, it is perfectly 
plain, that any act by which it is preceded must be at 
variance with the will of God. An attempt, therefore, to 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 191 

pray to God before regeneration, must be accounted re- 
bellious. This act must be classed with any other act 
performed under the same circumstances. It is the at- 
tempt of a wholly impenitent and unbelieving man to pray, 
who has, as yet, refused to surrender any one point to 
divine authority. 

But it is not only by tracing the theory of New Di- 
vinity from its fundamental principles, along the line of 
intermediate deductions to the present point, that we ar- 
rive at this consequence. It flows immediately from the 
doctrine of natural ability, as held by the advocates of this 
scheme. For what shall the impenitent man pray ? Shall 
he pray for the pardon of his sins ? How can he expect 
that favour when he is fully able to do, at any moment, 
that which would make him a Christian, but perversely 
refuses to do it ? Would not this be to ask God to forgive 
him while he prefers to continue in rebellion 1 Shall he 
pray for divine influence to assist him to repent and be- 
lieve ? This would be to ask God to help him to do that 
which he is able to do of himself, and which he is pre- 
vented from doing instantly, solely by unwillingness. It 
would be most barefaced and impudent rebellion. Thus 
we see that while prayer for pardon, spiritual influence, 
and regeneration, fully accords with the principles of Me- 
thodism, the principles of New Divinity construe it into a 
wanton abomination, or a gross delusion. 

We shall now proceed to show, by quotations, that the 
advocates of this system are not unapprized of its bearings 
in this direction, and that they, on the contrary, adopt, 
and endeavour to sustain this inference in their public in- 
structions. 

Mr. Finney, in his lectures on " False Comforts for 
Sinners," specifies " telling the sinner to pray for a new 
heart," as a mode of administering false comfort. "I onco 
heard," says he, " a celebrated Sunday school teacher do 



192 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 

this : — He was almost the father of Sunday schools in this 
country. He called a little girl up to him, and began to 
talk to her. 4 My little daughter, are you a Christian V 
No, sir. 4 Well, you cannot be a Christian yourself, can 
you V No, sir. 4 No, you cannot be a Christian. You 
cannot change your heart yourself ; but you must pray for 
a new heart. That is all you can do ; pray to God. God 
will give you a new heart.' He was an aged and vene- 
rable man ; but I felt almost disposed to rebuke him openly 
in the name of the Lord. I could not bear to hear him 
deceive that child — telling her she could not be a Chris- 
tian. Does God say, 4 Pray for a new heart V Never. 
He says, 4 Make you a new heart.' And the sinner is not 
to be told to pray to God to do his duty for him, but to go 
and do it himself." — p. 318. 

According to this statement, an aged and venerable man, 
almost the father of Sunday schools in this country, nar- 
rowly escaped an open rebuke from this apostle of New 
Divinity, for telling a little girl that she could not change 
her own heart, but must pray to God to change it. We 
are also authoritatively informed that God does not require 
the sinner to pray for a new heart. 

This assertion of Mr. F. was made in full view of the 
prayer of the psalmist for a clean heart and a right spirit 
— and anticipating that it could be brought forward to re- 
fute his rash dogmatism, he goes to work to dispose of it : 
44 1 know that the psalmist, a good man, prayed, 4 Create 
in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me.' 
He had faith, and prayed in faith. But that is a very dif- 
ferent thing from setting an absolute rebel to pray for a 
new heart." 

It will be perceived at once, that this attempt at argu- 
ment is based on the assumption that there are no degrees 
of faith or repentance ; that a man is either wholly unbe- 
lieving and an obstinate rebel, or a regenerate man. The 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



193 



psalmist is justified by Mr. Finney on the ground that he 
was " a good man," and had " faith." Can it be possible 
that Mr. F. did not see the fatal absurdity into which he 
was about to plunge himself? What need had the psalmist 
to pray for a clean heart and a right spirit ? Had he not 
changed his own heart ? Was not his petition wholly su- 
perfluous ? Besides, if the psalmist was not in possession 
of a clean heart, why did he not create it himself ? Or 
has a " good man," who has faith, less power in this re- 
spect than an obstinate rebel, or an unconverted sabbath 
school girl, so that while these are able to change their 
own hearts and renew their own spirits, and have no right 
to call on God for help, the good man has not the power 
to do it, but must call on God to do it for him ? Shame 
on the man who can deliberately advance and publish such 
nonsense on so sacred and awful a subject ! 

He also tells us that to direct the sinner " to pray for 
repentance," or " conviction," or " for the Holy Ghost to 
show him his sins," is to comfort him falsely. — p. 320. 

As Mr. F. is looked upon as an ultraist, even in New 
Divinity, it may be supposed that he is solitary in his op- 
position to this Scriptural and indispensable practice. 
This is not the case. This leaven leavens the whole 
lump. Mr. Duffield says, evidently referring to the prac- 
tice of Methodists, " Besides, this method of procedure is 
inconsistent with itself. The sirmer is to be told c that 
effectual help may be obtained by earnest entreaty' — that 
if he asks aright he will be heard. He cannot this very 
instant believe ; he must not dare to do so in his own 
strength : he must be ' forbidden to attempt it,' but if he 
prays sincerely and fervently, help will be found. And 
this, with some, is 1 preaching the whole counsel of God,' 
and to neglect to do so is 1 keeping back the truth ! ! !' 
The first may produce, as it does among those who adopt 
the 4 seeking' plan, a great deal of noisy excitement, and 

9 

I 



194 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 

in many cases the most fatal delusion, and abominable 
hypocrisy. We speak that which we have seen, and testify 
that which we do know. The other suggestion about 
praying aright, only tends to distract the sinner's attention, 
and turn it away from Christ to himself. He is put upon 
inquiry what it is to pray aright, and examining his own 
feelings, and it is morally impossible, in such a case, for 
the mind to wake up, under the influence of the great ob- 
jects of our faith." — p. 547. 

"But as he (the minister) would not throw the soul on 
the very threshold of the kingdom, immeasurably, and per- 
haps eternally back, let him beware how he directs him to 
pray, or to use the meansP — p. 548. 

Before we proceed, it may be well to notice the sug- 
gestions which Mr. D. throws out, for the purpose of dis- 
paraging the " seeking plan," as he calls it. The doc- 
trine, that effectual help may be obtained by earnest 
entreaty, " may" and " does" produce, among those who 
adopt the " seeking plan," " noisy excitements," " fatal 
delusion, and abominable hypocrisy." We shall be pre- 
pared to surrender the doctrine in question, when New 
Divinity has made us infidels, and not before. Is there 
any doctrine of the word of God more clearly and em- 
phatically taught, than that help is to be obtained by 
prayer ? Or is it earnestness in prayer that is so pernicious ? 
Did not Jacob entreat earnestly, when, wrestling with the 
Angel of the covenant, he said, " I will not let thee go, 
except thou bless me ?" Did not the psalmist pray ear- 
nestly ? — What does this language mean — " Forsake me 
not, O Lord ; O my God, be not far from me. Make haste 
to help me, O Lord God of my salvation ?" Psa. xxxviii. 
He called upon God, and cried unto him with his voice. 
Was there not earnestness in the prayer of the publican, 
when he smote upon his breast and said, " God be merci- 
ful to me a sinner ?" Did not the Saviour pray with strong 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 195 

cries and tears ? Sometimes this earnestness produced a 
little " noisy excitement" too, as in the case of Bartimeus, 
which offended others, but in no instance incurred the 
disapprobation of the Saviour. As to delusion, we shall 
reserve what we have to say until we come to examine 
the tendencies of New Divinity in that direction. The 
objection, that telling the sinner " that if he asks aright 
he will be heard," " only tends to distract his attention, 
and turn it away from Christ to himself" — that " he is 
put upon inquiring what it is to pray aright, and ex- 
amining his own feelings," and that "it is morally im- 
possible, in such a case, for the mind to wake up under 
the great objects of our faith," is palpably fallacious. It 
lies equally against self-examination on any point. Is 
there no danger of the sinner taking that for submission 
which is not submission ? Do not the preachers of New 
Divinity frequently detect in their converts the indulgence 
of " premature hopes F* And shall the sinner be forbidden 
to inquire what it is to repent or submit, or to " examine 
his own feelings," and acts, to see whether they accord 
with the requirements of God or not ? Must he go on, and 
take it for granted that he is doing just what is right, and 
conclude that he is, of course, a Christian ? And will the 
advocates of such a blind and headlong course as this, 
charge with a tendency to promote delusion, the doctrines 
which require that the sinner shall examine his motives and 
actions, and ascertain whether they are in accordance or 
at variance with the law of God ? If Mr. D. will prove 
that it is impossible to pray otherwise than aright, wa 
need not give ourselves nor the sinner any further trouble 
on the subject. 

We will present another example from this author :— 
" Why then shall the sinner be told to pray, or to do any 
thing else, as though it could directly or indirectly con- 
duce to his salvation, when at the moment he refuses to 



196 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



believe ? Is it true that asking and seeking are acceptable 
to God, unless there is faith ? Does he not say, ' He that 
cometh unto God must believe that without faith it is im- 
possible to please him' — ' That whatsoever is not of faith 
is sin V 99 Here is a plain intimation that prayer on the 
part of the sinner cannot conduce either directly or indi- 
rectly to his salvation. The argument by which this 
opinion is attempted to be sustained, has been amply re- 
futed. It proceeds on the principle, that the first act 
of faith, or any degree of faith, secures salvation. But 
if this be the case, there is no need, as we have shown, 
even to purpose to serve God, or to come to him, or to 
submit to him ; because these acts presuppose faith, and 
are therefore superseded by it. "He that cometh unto 
God must believe that he is" &c, says the apostle. But 
admit that there are successive acts and various degrees 
of faith, and then it will appear sufficiently plain that the 
sinner may have more or less faith, and yet fall short of 
what is required of him ; and that, for all this argument 
proves to the contrary, the prayer of the sinner may con- 
duce to his salvation. 

This same hostility to the sinner's praying for salvation 
is strongly expressed in a pamphlet, entitled " Narrative 
of a Revival of Religion in the Third Presbyterian Church 
of Baltimore. With Remarks on Subjects connected with 
Revivals in General. By W. C. Walton, Pastor of said 
Church." 

He remarks, " Sinners are indeed often told they 
must repent or perish ; but the guilt of neglecting to do 
this immediately is not sufficiently insisted upon. And 
when they are awakened, instead of having this duty urged 
upon them with all the force of divine authority, it is often 
taken for granted that, they are already penitent, and they 
are pitied and prayed for as mourners, who are willing to 
be saved if God will only convert them ; when their dis- 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



197 



tress arises from nothing but the fear of hell, and the 
struggling of a rebellious heart against the duty of an im- 
mediate submission to God, on the terms of the gospel. 
In this state of mind the direction commonly given to 
them is, to persevere in praying and using the means of grace. 
This goes upon the assumption that God has somewhere 
promised to meet the sinner on this ground, and to bless 
him while he is unwilling to submit, and renounce his 
sins ; and that merely because he is externally observing 
a divine institution. Such a promise it would be difficult 
to find. To persons in the state of mind here supposed, 
the word of God contains no promise of good, but many 
denunciations of evil. Evil is represented as 6 pursuing' 
them. ' Evil pursueth sinners,' * God is angry with the 
wicked every day.' They are 4 condemned already/ and 
can never know at one moment that they will be out of 
hell the next. If, then, God has given them no promise 
of good while they remain impenitent rebels — and such 
they may be even when greatly distressed from the fear 
of punishment — it is clear that, in order to have any Scrip- 
tural ground to hope their prayers will be heard and ac- 
cepted, they must, in the first place, cease from their 
impenitence and rebellion, by a cordial and unreserved 
submission to the terms of the gospel. What authority 
have I then to encourage them to hope that they will re- 
ceive any answer to their impenitent prayers ? Or to give 
them any direction, the tendency of which would be to 
make them believe that they are in the way to obtain re- 
ligion, when they do not desire it, and are unwilling to 
have it on the only terms on which God will bestow it ?" 

The reader who has not been made acquainted with 
the sophistries of modern Calvinism would naturally infer 
from the preceding quotation, that some preachers — and 
the Methodists are evidently intended — are in the habit 
of directing " impenitent rebels," who " do not desire re- 



198 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER* 



ligion, and who " are unwilling to have it," except on their 
own terms, to offer up " impenitent prayers" for religion, 
while their intention is not to submit, but to live in sin, 
and that the writer was merely opposing such a course. 
It is this aspect of the argument which gives it all its 
plausibility. There may possibly be such teachers in ex- 
istence, but we know not where they are to be found. 
This is certainly not the practice of the Methodists. But 
a little attention will disclose the reason of their imputing 
this conduct to those who direct the sinner to "call on 
the name of the Lord" that he may " be saved." They pro- 
ceed on the supposition that one single voluntary act of 
the mind changes a man in one moment from an impeni- 
tent rebel to a Christian — that the very first act of peni- 
tence, or faith, or submission in any form, is sufficient — 
that if a man is not a Christian, and in possession of sal- 
vation, it is because he is wholly impenitent, and does not 
even desire religion. Of course, in their view, to direct 
any man to pray for salvation, or in order to become a 
Christian, is to direct an impenitent rebel to pray ; for 
there is no medium between total impenitence and holi- 
ness. If he has the least degree of penitence he has no 
need to pray for salvation. This is the principle on which 
the writer argues. It can hardly be necessary to repeat 
our views on this subject. We go on the ground that 
there are successive acts, and various degrees of repent- 
ance and faith — that prayer belongs to repentance as one 
of its acts, and that the man who refuses to pray for sal- 
vation, refuses to repent fully and effectually. We no 
more encourage sinners to pray insincerely, than to feign 
repentance. 

This writer adds, "The error I am now combating 
seems to arise from the erroneous supposition, that when 
the sinner is awakened, and begins to reform his external 
conduct, and to use the means of grace, his heart is grow- 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



199 



ing better in the sight of God ; that he is becoming less 
and less unworthy ; and that by this gradual diminution of 
his unworthiness, he is making a gradual approximation 
to a right state of feeling. Hence the direction, ' Continue 
praying — persevere — you are in a hopeful way — after 
awhile you will obtain religion,' " &c. 

It will be perceived at once that this is aimed at 
Methodism. While it discloses to us the author's senti- 
ments, it affords us an opportunity of replying to his impu- 
tations. The sinner is not urged to pray, and persevere, 
and told that he is in a hopeful way, on the supposition 
that he is making himself worthy of the blessing he seeks. 
But it is supposed that he is making advancement toward 
that state of feeling which God requires, or the direction 
would not be given. It is supposed that the use of those 
means contributes to that degree of penitence and faith, 
in connection with which, God has placed the blessings 
of pardon and spiritual renovation. And surely the heart 
that is in some degree penitent, and whose penitence is 
increasing, is not in a worse condition than that which is 
wholly impenitent. Shall we suppose that the atheist 
grows worse and worse, as he is led successively to be- 
lieve in a God, and in all the articles which compose the 
Christian faith ? The fact that God has promised salva- 
tion to those who are in a certain state of mind, proves 
that their case becomes more hopeful as they approximate 
to that state of mind. The doctrine of New Divinity is, 
that every effort that a man makes to obtain religion makes 
him worse and worse, drives him further and further 
away from God, until all at once, without a single prepa- 
ratory step, he turns round, quick as thought, and makes 
himself a Christian, which he could as easily have done 
at any other period. We leave it with the reader to decide 
which of these views is most compatible with Scripture 
and reason. 



200 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



Mr. Hinton, in his work entitled " The Active Christian," 
a book containing many excellences as well as errors, 
says in describing " cases of ill-directed effort" on the 
part of awakened sinners, " Now none of these pleasing 
appearances exercise a more delusive influence than 
prayer. To a very great extent a notion prevails, that 
sinners may be saved by prayer, and there is something 
so excellent in prayer itself, and, considered as a spiritual 
exercise, so much identified with the existence of sincere 
piety, that many persons have either imbibed the senti- 
ment, or a,re startled with the opposite. To me it appears 
one of the simplest and most obvious truths, that no man 
can be saved by prayer. If it be a spiritual exercise (which 
is far from being always the case) it may be like holiness, 
an evidence of salvation, but not the instrument of it. It 
is not that which a sinner is to do in order to be saved, or 
that by which he can be saved. It does nothing toward his 
salvation, but leaves the question of acceptance or wrath just 
where it was. Now, if prayer might always be taken as 
an evidence of piety, it would be an unscriptural and mis- 
chievous thing to confound the evidences with the method 
of salvation. But, as I have just hinted, prayer is by 
no means uniformly a spiritual exercise. Much of it is 
formal, and much that is not formal is natural — the utter- 
ance of an awakened but not of a subdued heart. This is 
even no evidence of piety; and yet it is the prayer by 
which multitudes hope to be saved. It is not only a 
truth, therefore, but a very important truth, that a sinner 
cannot be saved by prayer ; that if prayer be unaccom- 
panied with submission to God, it leaves him under con- 
demnation ; that if it be accompanied with submission to 
God, it is not prayer that saves him, but submission ; and 
that reliance placed on prayer serves only to blind him to 
his condition, and to render prayer itself the instrument 
of his ruin. 



NEW DIVINITY— PRAYER. 



201 



" It is the more material that prayer should be set in its 
true light, because by many persons it is regarded, not 
merely as that which will save them, but as the only thing 
which is requisite or possible for them to do in reference 
to their salvation. ' If prayer does not answer the end,' 
they are ready to say, 4 What can we do more V And as 
it uniformly happens that prayer does not answer an end 
for which it is unscripturally and inappropriately used, it 
hence follows that they conclude they have nothing else 
to do, and make themselves satisfied in a state of sin and 
condemnation ; as though they would say, ' I have prayed 
to God, and that is every thing ; and now if I am not con- 
verted and saved it is not my fault.' It is evident that in 
such a state of mind, the attention of the sinner is with- 
drawn from all Scriptural views of duty, and from every 
impulse to right action. The Scripture speaks of humbling 
ourselves before God, of repentance, of godly sorrow, of 
submission to Christ's righteousness, all of which are thus 
most unjustly and injuriously superseded by prayer, an 
exercise by the performance of which, in whatever man- 
ner, a sinner deems himself exonerated from all obligation 
to these Scriptural and essential duties. Instead of being 
useful, the very exercise of prayer becomes in this method 
a tremendous mischief. I do not need here to be told of 
the fallen and helpless state of human nature, or of the 
thousand encouragements to prayer which are contained 
in the divine word. Admitting these most readily, I must 
maintain also that it is a sinner's direct and immediate duty 
to turn to God, and submit to his Son, a duty from the obli- 
gation and necessity of which a whole century of prayer 
could not relieve him. Make it your business, dear 
brethren, to see that no person under your instruction 
shall ruin himself by this melancholy delusion." 

This author finds it necessary, like all the rest of his 
school, to caricature the doctrine he opposes, in order to 

9* 



202 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 

the success of his opposition. 11 To a very great extent/ 7 
he says, " the notion prevails that a sinner may be saved 
by prayer" " By many persons it is regarded, not merely 
as that which will save them, but as the only thing which 
it is either requisite or possible for them to do in reference 
to their salvation." They think that by the performance 
of this exercise, in any manner, a sinner is " exonerated 
from all obligation" to the " Scriptural and essential duties 
of humbling himself before God, of repentance, of godly 
sorrow, of submission to Christ's righteousness." It can 
hardly be necessary to deny that those who direct the 
sinner to pray for mercy, entertain such views of prayer. 
They look upon prayer as one of those exercises which 
God has enjoined on the sinner as the means of obtain- 
ing salvation, and suppose that the neglect of it will be 
equally fatal with the neglect of any other duty. 

We readily grant that the sinner may entertain mistaken 
views of the nature and efficacy of prayer. In such a 
case it will be important that his views be corrected. But 
the liability to delusion respecting prayer, is no greater 
than the liability to delusion respecting any other exercise. 
A man may as easily suppose " worldly sorrow" to be 
" godly sorrow." He may as easily suppose that to be re- 
pentance which is not repentance. But the author is not 
so much concerned to correct the manner of the sinner's 
praying. It is prayer itself, on the part of an awakened 
sinner, as a means of grace, that he is opposing. " It is 
not that which a sinner is to do in order to be saved." "It 
does nothing toward his salvation." " It may be, like holi- 
ness, an evidence of salvation, but not the instrument of it" 
" If prayer be unaccompanied by submission to God, it 
leaves him under condemnation ; if it be accompanied 
with submission to God, it is not prayer that saves him, 
but submission." So that prayer is wholly unnecessary. 
Indeed we are told "that reliance placed upon prayer 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 203 

serves only to blind him to his condition, and to render 
prayer itself the instrument of his ruin." The sinner may 
fall into other mistakes, but " none of these pleasing ap- 
pearances exercise a more plausible and delusive influ- 
ence than that of prayer." 

As to prayer superseding other duties, it may as well 
be pretended that godly sorrow supersedes repentance, or 
repentance faith, or faith " submission." But what is the 
" submission" to which such all-absorbing importance is 
attached ? The author seems to speak of it as a separate 
exercise. But in what part of the word of God is sub- 
mission enjoined as a particular exercise ? Where is it 
said, " He that submits shall be saved ?" Prayer is dis- 
tinctly specified as the sinner's duty: " Seek ye the Lord 
while he may be found, call upon him while he is near." 
That submission is necessary is not questioned. No man 
can be saved until he submits. But does one particular 
exercise constitute submission, or does it include a varie- 
ty of exercises ? New Divinity delights in vague and 
ambiguous terms. The sinner inquires what he shall do 
to be saved. These teachers tell him to submit. This 
he professes a willingness to do, but wants to know 
what it is to submit. He is told that to submit is to do 
what God requires of him. " But what does God require 
of me?" is the natural response to such sage instruction: 
"Must I pray to him? What must I do?" "No, you 
must not pray, you must submit to God." How very 
luminous ! And so simple too ! ! There surely can be 
no great danger of delusion here ! ! ! Now those who direct 
the sinner to pray, enjoin submission just as much as the 
advocates of New Divinity. They hold that submission 
includes a variety of exercises, and that prayer is one of 
them — and one of leading importance. They therefore 
enjoin it as an essential part of submission. There may 
be prayer without entire submission, but there cannot be 



204 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



entire submission without prayer. The New School di- 
vines leave out of their doctrine of submission, duties 
which God has peremptorily commanded. God has en- 
joined prayer, but they forbid it, and enjoin submission. 
What is this but substituting rebellion for submission ? 
The submission which they enjoin is downright rebellion. 
It may be submission to Messrs. Finney, Duffield, Hin- 
ton, or to other New Divinity teachers ; but it is not sub- 
mission to God. The truth is, that prayer, so far from 
superseding other duties, is directly promotive of them — 
while the sinner who does not pray will not humble him- 
self, will not repent, will not believe, will not be saved. 
Mr. H. intimates that prayer does not answer the end 
for which it is used by those who resort to it as a means 
of obtaining mercy and salvation. Will Methodists believe 
this ? O, how many thousand tongues are ready to con- 
tradict the assertion ! 



CHAPTER XIX. 

PRAYER CONTINUED. 

It will be perceived, from the extracts quoted and com- 
mented upon in the preceding chapter, that while the ad- 
vocates of New School theology condemn every act as 
unnecessary or rebellious — as " resisting the last hope of 
a lost soul" — which falls short of the one single act that 
regenerates, they have a special antipathy to prayer for 
pardon and regeneration. The question before us is one 
of immense importance. If the doctrine of our oppo- 
nents be true, then do the Methodists, with one voice, en- 
join on all who inquire the way of salvation, an exercise 
which is not only unnecessary, but highly prejudicial to 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



205 



their spiritual interests. It may be supposed by some of 
our readers that the examples which we have presented 
to prove that this doctrine is held and taught by those to 
whom we impute it, are sufficiently pointed and numerous ; 
but we beg leave to call their attention to one more writer 
on this subject, the Rev. Charles Fitch. We have before 
us a book entitled " Inquirer's Guide," published by Mr. 
Fitch, while pastor of the " Free Congregational Church," 
in Hartford, to which our attention was recently directed 
by a member of the New- York Conference, who had met 
with it in his pastoral visitations. It is designed for in- 
quirers particularly, as the title indicates. We hesitate 
not to affirm that it contains spiritual poison — rank and 
deadly. We would warn all inquirers, within the circle 
of our influence, against trusting themselves to its delusive 
guidance. 

The book professes to illustrate truth by facts, and con- 
tains several narratives, in which its doctrinal peculiarities 
are exhibited. One of them introduces two cousins, Mary 
and Juliet, as the leading personages in the history. They 
were returning from prayer-meeting together. 4 4 4 We 
will not go to sleep to night,' said Alary to Juliet, as they 
were returning from the prayer-meeting, 4 until we have 
given our hearts to God.' They reached home, and re- 
tired immediately to their room, to fulfil their resolutions. 
After praying alternately for some hours, they called the 
lady of the house from her bed, and requested her to go 
to their room. She did so, and then asked what was their 
wish. 4 That you will pray for us,' was the reply. 4 And 
for what shall I pray,' asked the lady. 4 O !' said they, 
4 that we may have new hearts.' She complied with their 
request ; and on retiring from the room, she heard one 
of them say, 4 How shall we know that we have new 
hearts V 4 W r e will pray,' said the other, 4 until we do 
know.' Thus they continued praying until they felt 



206 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 

within them they had given their hearts to God, and were 
ready to devote their lives to his service." 

The author of the book does not question the genuine- 
ness of the change which took place in these persons. 
" There are few," he says, " whose piety has been more 
consistent than that of Mary and Juliet." But he objects 
to the course they pursued, and in stating his objection he 
developes the pernicious tendencies of his theory. 

He says, " In the resolution formed by Mary and Juliet, 
they did wrong in but one thing. Instead of saying, We 
will give our hearts to God before we sleep, and then 
waiting until they could go home to their chamber to do it, 
they should have said, We will now — we do now give our 
hearts to God, where we are — before we take another 
step — before we draw another breath. From this instant, 
and for evermore, we will love God and him only, and 
serve him with all our powers until we die ; trusting in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, that our multiplied sins will be for- 
given through the merits of his atoning blood. They had 
no means of knowing that God would let them live until 
they could go home to their chamber ; they were presum- 
ing on a time to make their preparation, which might 
never come. Instead of withholding their hearts from 
God so long, and spending these hours in praying for them- 
selves, they should have yielded at once, and gone home 
to pray for the Holy Ghost to be poured out upon their 
young companions, who were yet living in sin. They 
might have come to the full, unreserved, and heartfelt 
resolution to love God and obey him for ever, at any pre- 
vious moment, just as well as when they actually did. It 
was not necessary for them to offer all these prayers to pre- 
vail with God and make him willing that they should have 
new hearts. God was more than willing ; he was strongly 
desirous that they should have new hearts, before one of 
those prayers had been offered ; and the only thing to be 



NEW DIVINITY— PRAYER. 



207 



done by them toward obtaining new hearts, was just to 
consent sincerely and heartily, to love God and obey him 
All this they had to do, after all their prayers." 

" If Mary and Juliet had not done this — if they had not 
fully determined that they would for ever love and serve 
their Maker with all their powers, they might have prayed 
until now, and they would have been impenitent sinners 
still, and on the road to death. Their resolution that they 
would, on that night, give themselves to God, was a good 
one, except that they ought to have resolved on doing it 
much sooner, and ought to have given their all away to 
Christ, as they were walking by the way, and thus have 
gone home his true disciples. They might have done it, 
and were exceedingly guilty for not doing it : and if God 
had cut them off in sin, while on their way to their dwell 
ing, and consigned them to eternal death, it would have 
been altogether righteous." — p. 58. 

In these quotations we have (clearly presented) the fol- 
lowing doctrines : 1st, That the prayers of these cousins, 
for new hearts, were wholly unnecessary. 2dly, That 
whatever may be included in giving the heart to God and 
becoming Christians, may be done in one moment — " be- 
fore we draw another breath" — " before we take another 
step." 3dly, That while " the cousins" were praying for 
new hearts, they were " impenitent sinners still, and on the 
road to death." 4thly, That to " come to the full, unre- 
served, and heartfelt resolution to love God and obey him 
for ever," or "just to consent sincerely and heartily to love 
God and obey him," or to " fully determine that they will 
for ever love and serve their Maker with all their powers," 
which may be done by " impenitent sinners" in a moment, 
is " the only thing to be done by them toward obtaining 
new hearts." 

Is it not clear that if, at the first, Mary and Juliet had 
concluded that their hearts were already given to God, by 



208 NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 

the resolution they had formed ; and, omitting the hateful 
business of praying for new hearts, had "indulged a hope," 
and prayed for their young companions, they would have 
escaped Mr. F.'s censures, and all would have been right. 

Mr. F. does not, however, " put forth half his strength" 
against prayer in this part of his book, but " checks his 
thunder in mid- volley." In a second narrative, entitled 
" God is willing that Sinners should be Saved," he comes - 
out as follows: — "E. P. was hopefully converted under 
the following circumstances : A protracted meeting was 
in progress, and his attention was called to his eternal 
well-being — but he had not yielded his heart to God. At 
this time a sermon was preached from the following text : 
4 Whoso turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even 
his prayer shall be an abomination.' It was remarked by 
the preacher that 4 there was nothing upon which anxious 
sinners usually placed more value than upon their prayers 
— thinking that by these they should prevail with God to 
have mercy on them, and thus secure salvation !' It was 
also said, 6 that these impenitent prayers were frequently 
the last thing which the impenitent were willing to give 
up, before they left all, and trusted in Christ.' It was 
stated that there was 4 no necessity for impenitent sinners to 
pray that God would have mercy on them] and that 4 such 
prayers were an abomination, when they were offered.' 
These two points were made to appear by the following 
illustration : 4 A thief is arraigned at the bar of his coun- 
try, and condemned to state's prison for life. After his 
sentence he sends up a petition to the legislature for a 
pardon. They consider his case, and resolve that if the 
man will acknowledge his crime, and pledge himself to 
render obedience to the laws of his country in future, he 
shall be set at liberty. 

44 This decision is made known to the man, but he at 
once replies, 4 1 shall do no such thing as they say, I do 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



209 



not ask for conditional pardon. I wish to be set at liberty, 
and left free in future to steal or not, as I choose.' He 
sends this answer to the legislature, and accompanies it 
with another earnest prayer for pardon. But the legisla- 
ture, so soon as his petition is read, reply with one voice, 
We can have nothing more to do with that man's case. 
We have disposed of it. We have once decided, that if 
he will acknowledge his crime, and pledge himself to 
obey the law, he is pardoned. We have no more to do 
with his case.' But the man still refuses to comply with 
the conditions ; and again, with more earnestness than 
before, sends up a prayer for pardon. He repeats it time 
after time. He becomes apparently very much distressed. 
He portrays before them the horrors of a prison, and tells 
them how much he suffers at the thought of running out 
his whole life within the gloomy walls of a dungeon ; but 
in the midst of all his distress, he absolutely refuses either 
to confess his crime, or to give the pledge of future obe- 
dience to the law. 

"Now it will be seen that this man's petitions are clearly 
useless. There is no necessity for them. The legisla- 
ture have already resolved that they will pardon him, on 
the only conditions which can be consistent with the rights 
of the community ; what need is there then of his pray- 
ing? It is evident the only object of his prayers must be 
to induce the legislature to alter the conditions on which 
they have agreed to pardon him. 

k< But can they do this ? Can they consistently set him 
at liberty, with full knowledge of the fact that he intends 
to steal whenever he may choose ? Will not his prayers 
in such a case be most clearly an abomination ? The 
legislature would soon become weary of them, and proba- 
bly refuse to hear them. That man turns away his ear 
from hearing the law. There is no necessity that he 
should continue to ask for mercy. The pardon has been 



210 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



presented, and now, if he will comply with the terms, 
which all must see are reasonable, he can have his liberty. 
Just as long as he continues to pray, he will be more and 
more an abomination. 

" ' Precisely such,' it was stated, ' is the case of the 
sinner toward God. God has already said in his word, 
' Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous 
man his thoughts, and let him turn unto the Lord, and he 
will have mercy on him, and to our God, who will abun- 
dantly pardon.' It is also said, ' Whoso covereth his sins 
shall not prosper ; but he that confesseth and forsaketh, 
shall have mercy.' 

" ' But so soon as the sinner sees that he is in danger of 
sinking to hell, he begins to cry out for mercy. What 
need of this ? God has said, beforehand, ' He that confess- 
eth and forsaketh his sins, shall have mercy.'' Why does 
he pray ? Does he expect God will have mercy on him 
while he does not confess and forsake his sins 1 He may 
pray as long as the rich man did for water, and he will 
be sure to obtain nothing. He might offer such prayers 
as these to all eternity, and God would never hear. Why 
does he not confess and forsake his sins, and then he 
would be sure of mercy — sure of free forgiveness and ever- 
lasting life. 

" ' But he becomes very much distressed. He sheds 
burning tears as he looks into hell, and rolls upon his pil- 
low at night, as sleep departs from his eyelids, and begs 
of God to save his perishing soul. He spends whole days 
thus, and perhaps flatters himself, that the more he prays, 
the more likely he will be to obtain salvation. Still, how 
ever, while he keeps on praying, he altogether refuses to 
confess and forsake his sins. Must not such prayers be 
an abomination 1 God has told him already that he is wil- 
ling to have mercy on him. There is, therefore, no need to 
pray for it. 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



211 



" ' The sinner turns away his ear from hearing the law, 
He will not obey in the thing which God requires, though 
he prays with great earnestness, and thinks to prevail. 
God will let him pray eternally, but will curse his soul 
for every prayer he offers , until he will do the thing re- 
quired of him — that is, confess and forsake his sins. 

The longer he prays thus, the more abominable must 
he become in God's sight. He is merely begging of God 
to forgive him, and take him to heaven, while he continues 
to be a rebel. Let Mm leave off his ungodly prayers, and 
do the thing which God requires of him, and then his soul 
will be saved. After this he may pray, and God will hear 
him ; but God hears no man's prayers who will not con- 
fess and forsake his sins.' " 

" E. P. felt the force of this truth. He felt willing to 
give up his sins, and consecrate himself to the service of 
God ; and in doing this he found peace. 

11 Sinners should be directed to do what God has made 
necessary to salvation. It is nowhere said in the Bible, 
that if the impenitent sinner will pray, he shall be saved : 
nor is there any evidence that God places any value upon 
his prayers, when they are offered. 

" The first thing which sinners have to do, is to repent 
— that is, confess and forsake their sins, and every thing 
is an abomination until this is done. This they will never 
do while they think any thing else will answer in its 
place. They cannot, therefore, too soon be made to feel 
that all their prayers and tears, and eternal reformations, 
are wholly useless, until they will acknowledge their 
transgressions to God, and enter at once upon the full 
discharge of all the duties which he requires. To tell the 
sinner to pray, when God has commanded him * to repent 
and turn himself from all his transgressions,' is to handle 
the word of God deceitfully, and daub with untempered 
mortar."— p. 98. 



212 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



The reader will keep in mind the object for which w» 
make these quotations. They are intended to show that 
the inference which we have deduced from other parts of 
the New School theory, namely, that for the sinner to pray 
for forgiveness and regeneration is unnecessary and rebel- 
lious, is recognised, and held and taught as a doctrine, by 
the advocates of that theory. Additional testimony is unne- 
cessary. This point is abundantly substantiated. Indeed, 
we would have satisfied ourselves with much less exten- 
sive extracts, were we not apprehensive that the charity 
of many would render them reluctant to believe that a 
doctrine, penetrating so far into the regions of destructive 
error, could be held by persons maintaining such a show 
of zeal and spirituality, as must be placed to the credit of 
many New School churches. 

The fallacy of this author's reasoning is easily de- 
tected. He opposes prayer for salvation, on the part 
of the unconverted, on the ground, first, that they are im- 
penitent ; secondly, that they are unnecessary. The 
case of the sinner who prays for pardon is " precisely 
similar," in his estimation, to that of the thief, who 
sends his petition to the legislature for a pardon, and 
who, when informed that the legislature have resolved to 
pardon him on the condition that he will acknowledge his 
crime, and promise future obedience to the laws, replies 
that he " shall do no such thing" — he does " not ask for a 
conditional pardon" — he washes " to be set at liberty, and 
left free in future, to steal or not, as he shall choose" — 
and who sends this answer to the legislature, accom- 
panied with another petition for pardon. 

Now we honestly declare that in all our experience we 
never met with a case like this. During a ministry of 
several years, we have been in the habit of urging sinners 
to pray for mercy, and have seen many kneel down before 
God for that purpose; resume their posture of supplica- 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



213 



tion from time to time ; rise from their knees assured that 
the anger of God was turned away ; and rejoice in the 
hope of the glory of God. We have seen the genuineness 
of their conversion attested by holy lives and triumphant 
deaths. But had we met with any of those presumptuous 
rebels, described by Mr. F., instead of encouraging them 
to expect pardon in answer to their insulting petitions, we 
should have feared that God would strike them dead, and 
send them to hell instantly. We would have endeavoured 
to arouse them to a sense of their danger, by such lan- 
guage as this : — " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 
how shall ye escape the damnation of hell!" 

Mr. F. is not guided in his estimate of the charac- 
ter of those who pray for pardon and regeneration, by the 
facts of the case, but by his misleading theory. He as- 
sumes that the very first act which is in the least degree 
conformed to the will of God — the first act, or degree, of 
repentance or faith — is sufficient to secure pardon ; and 
then very consistently infers that the sinner who prays 
for pardon obstinately refuses to perform that act, and is 
therefore wholly impenitent. If he would only perform 
that act, his prayer would be unnecessary. " God has 
told him already, that he is willing to have mercy on him. 
There is, therefore, no need to pray for itP By this theory 
would Mr. F., and the advocates of New Divinity general- 
ly, undertake to explain all those cases of deep and 
agonizing repentance which have not yet resulted in ac- 
tual and ascertained forgiveness. " The sinner sees that 
he is in danger of sinking into hell," and " begins to cry 
out for mercy," while he wilfully refuses to perform that 
one act which God requires of him, and which he can 
perform before he " draws another breath." " He becomes 
very much distressed. He sheds burning tears as he looks 
into hell, and rolls upon his pillow at night, as sleep 
departs from his eyelids, and begs God to save his perish- 



214 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



ing soul. He spends whole days thus, and perhaps flat- 
ters himself that the more he prays, the more likely he 
will be to obtain salvation. Still, however, while he 
keeps on praying, he altogether refuses" to do that one 
single act which is required of him. Hence, of course, 
his prayers are " an abomination." " The longer he prays 
thus, the more abominable he must become in God's sight. 
He is merely begging of God to forgive him and take him 
to heaven while he continues to be a rebel. Let him leave 
off his ungodly prayers," and do the thing which God re- 
quires, and his soul will be saved. " God will curse him 
for every prayer he offers" before he is converted. Let 
the sinner, then, who desires salvation, beware how he 
prays for it ! Whatever else he may do, let him avoid 
prayer as he would avoid cursing ! And as the advocates 
of this theory may be too modest or too charitable to 
make the following legitimate application of it, we will 
make it for them : — Let the sinner who desires to be 
saved, shun the Methodist Church as he would shun the 
gates of hell ; for they pursue, throughout the whole ex- 
tent of it, the practice of directing awakened sinners to 
pray for pardon and salvation, and, to all appearance, are 
likely to be incorrigible in the maintenance of their 
atrocious system. 

It is remarkable that the teachers of New Divinity, in 
specifying that one act which God requires of the sinner, 
vary their terms as the argument may seem to require. At 
one time they speak of " faith" as the thing required— at 
another time, " repentance"— at another, " willing," or 
" choosing," or " resolution" — at another, " confession of 
sin," or " forsaking it." This is the way with Mr. F. 
When speaking of " the cousins," all that is necessary is 
to come to the " resolution to love God and obey him 
for evei." In the case of the thief, that which is neces- 
sary is to acknowledge his crime, and pledge himself to 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



215 



obey the law. And now we are told that the reason why 
the sinner is not saved is, he refuses to " confess and for- 
sake his sins." But we have shown that the system 
which we are opposing, renders nearly all these acts un- 
necessary. This is eminently the case with confession 
of sin. It is the act, either of a penitent or an impenitent 
sinner. If of an impenitent sinner, it is, like prayer un- 
der the same circumstances, an act of rebellion — if of a 
penitent sinner, it is, like prayer, quite unnecessary. We 
refer the reader for a more full development of this argu- 
ment to the fourteenth chapter. 

Whatever others may think, it strikes us as a very re- 
markable thing, if indeed it be the case, that the impeni- 
tent sinner should have such a strong preference for 
prayer. According to the representations of these men, 
the sinner will " cry to God for mercy" — " beg of God to 
save his perishing soul" — " spend whole nights thus" — 
" shed burning tears," and pass sleepless nights— publicly 
approach the altar, or mourners' bench, and remain there 
for hours, struggling in earnest prayer ; and all to avoid 
doing — what ? Merely resolving to serve God, or willing 
to be a Christian, or exercising the least degree of repent- 
ance, which may be done by any man in a single moment ! 
" These impenitent prayers," we are told, are "the last 
thing which the impenitent are willing to give up." We 
are quite incapable of sympathizing with our New Divin- 
ity friends in their troubles on this point. Our difficul- 
ties are of a directly opposite character. We find it very 
hard work to induce sinners to pray, and keep them to 
their duty in this matter. And our difficulties, in many 
places, are not a little increased by the influence of New 
Divinity. Sinners are not easily persuaded to submit to 
the severe and humiliating terms of the gospel, as under- 
stood by the Methodists, unless their hearts are broken 
by convictions. It will afford them great relief to be 



216 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



assured that they can be converted by merely making up 
their minds to be Christians — an act which the Methodists 
enjoin as imperatively as do the New School, but which 
they consider only a part of what is required. Sinners do 
not pray thus because they prefer the exercise, but be- 
cause they believe the word of God requires it ; and the 
difficulty of which these teachers complain arises from 
this conviction. They have undertaken the task of per- 
suading the awakened and inquiring man to surrender his 
belief in the plainest instructions of the Bible, and to rely 
on a theory at which his common sense takes alarm — 
and I would to God that they may find far more difficulty. 
But, unhappily, they have on their side whatever remains 
of pride, of indolence, of depravity in any form. 

It is very convenient for them to represent the praying 
sinner as desiring mercy and heaven, while he has no de- 
sire for holiness. Thus does Mr. Fitch. Mr. Walton 
does the same : so do they all. But we have seen that 
they are no better pleased when the sinner prays that 
God would create in him a clean heart. " Does God say, 
Pray for a new heart ? Never !" asks, and exclaims Mr. 
Finney. 

Mr. Fitch assumes that repentance and prayer for mercy 
are incompatible. To tell the sinner to pray, when God 
has commanded him " to repent and turn himself from his 
transgressions," is to " handle the word of Qod deceitfully, 
and daub with untempered mortar." Hold ! To forbid the 
sinner to pray, because God has commanded him to re- 
pent, is to countermand the awful and irrevocable edicts 
of Heaven. Let him that does it, beware ! 

And while this system has been advancing to maturity, 
how many, who reject it as poison when they understand 
it, have been delighted with the deceitful imagination, that 
its advocates were approaching to the peculiarities of 
Methodism. 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 217 

We have already answered the argument, drawn from 
the supposed impenitence of the praying sinner. On this 
point we will add, if every act performed by an impeni- 
tent man is an impenitent act, and therefore rebellious, 
and yet God requires the impenitent man to do something 
in order to be saved, it follows inevitably that every im- 
penitent sinner must be damned. Because every effort 
ne makes must be an impenitent effort, and must therefore 
leave him in a worse condition than before. 



CHAPTER XX. 

PRAYER CONTINUED. 

We propose to examine the objection to the sinner's 
praying for mercy, which is deduced from the willingness 
of God to save. Mr. Fitch is not solitary in his reliance 
on it ; if he were, we should attach less importance to it. 
It is frequently thrown out by other writers and speakers 
of the same school, although not often so fully developed 
as in the instance before us. Mr. Duffield, in his argu- 
ment on the same subject, says, " To counsel the sinner 
in any other way, and to put him upon efforts, as it were 
to turn God to him, is taking part with the sinner against 
God, fostering the spirit of rebellion, and practically slan- 
dering the God of love. It is the sinner that must be 
turned. God is willing to save him" — p. 549. 

This futile objection lies equally in the way of the per- 
formance of any other conditional act. It may as well be 
argued that we confess our sins to make God willing to 
save us ; and therefore that confession of sin is " practi- 
cally slandering the God of love." If God has placed 
prayer among the terms of forgiveness, it is necessary for 

10 



218 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



that reason ; if he has not, it is unnecessary. The well- 
instructed inquirer prays for mercy on the same principle 
on which he performs any other exercise which God has 
commanded. Is it written, " If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins ?" It is also written, 
" They that call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 

But trifling as is this objection, it belongs to the system 
of New Divinity, and we proceed to trace its consequences. 
If the sinner is not to pray for his own salvation, because 
God is willing to save him, for the same reason he should 
decline prayer for the salvation of others. If, for instance, 
" Mary and Juliet" had gone and prayed that God would 
have mercy on their young companions, would not the act 
have implied the unwillingness of God to save sinners, 
just as much as prayer offered for themselves ? 

And shall we be believed when we affirm that this 
theory is actually pushed, in its practical application, up 
to this very point ? In this book, — " The Inquirer's Guide" 
— written expressly for the direction of those who ask 
what they shall do to be saved, is this strange doctrine 
strenuously inculcated. 

" We may here see, also, for what Christians should 
pray, when they plead with God for sinners. 

" To make the case plain, I will refer again to the 
illustration in the supposed case of the thief. After the 
legislature have determined that he may be set at liberty, 
if he will confess his crime, and pledge himself to obey 
the law, and he has refused to do this, and still urges his 
petition for a pardon a long time without success, he ob- 
tains a lawyer to prepare a new petition for him, and sends 
this, in the form of a memorial, all about the community, 
and obtains all the influential names far and near, and this 
is handed to the legislature, praying that he may be par- 
doned. The individual who presents the petition labours 
hard to operate on the sympathies of those before whom 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 219 

he brings the case. He speaks of the dreadful horrors 
of a dungeon, and of the painful deprivation of being cut 
off for ever from all the blessings of liberty and social life ; 
and brings up the man's family, and shows how dreadful 
it must be to them, to see the husband and the father torn 
from their arms, and immured for life in a dismal cell. 
But the legislature say at once, 4 Why all this ? Why come 
to operate on our feelings in such a manner, as though we 
were a company of hard-hearted wretches, that could not 
be moved at the miseries of our fellow-men ? We are per- 
fectly willing the man should be set at liberty this mo- 
ment. W r e are desirous of it — even more so than the 
petitioners can be. W T hy, then, come to plead with us ? 
Go to the wretched man for whom you are making all this 
exertion, and plead w T ith him to confess his crime, and 
promise obedience, and then he is pardoned, and we shall 
rejoice in it as much as you.' 

" Suppose now they keep urging their petition ; in 
what light could their conduct be regarded, but as an 
abomination ? 

" Look now at the sinner, who is alarmed at his expo- 
sure to hell. He has been a long time in a great anxiety 
of mind. He has passed many sleepless nights, shed 
burning tears over his present wretchedness, and his 
prospects of future wo, and sent up many loud and bitter 
cries to Heaven for mercy. All this time God has been 
pledging him free and full forgiveness and everlasting life, 
if he would confess and forsake his sins, but this he has 
refused to do. At length, full of distress, he goes to the 
minister and asks his prayers. He is full of compassion 
for the unhappy man, sympathizes in his sorrows, falls 
down on his knees with him, and begs God, with great 
earnestness, to have mercy upon him, and not let him go 
to hell. 

" The pastor then brings the case of the * poor mourn- 



220 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



ing sinner' before the Church ; they all weep with him, 
and send loud cries to Heaven for mercy. They tell 
God how precious is this man's soul — how dreadful that 
he should be shut up in hell for ever. And if he has a 
pious wife and children, they beg God to spare them the 
misery of seeing the husband and father separated from 
them for eternity, and shut up in the dark prison-house 
of hell. 

" Now it seems to me that if God should speak to that 
minister and that church, under such circumstances, he 
would say, 6 Why cry to me for mercy, as though I had 
no bowels of compassion ? As I live, I have no pleasure 
in the death of that sinner, but that he turn from his evil 
ways and live. Why talk to me about the worth of his 
soul, as though I did not know its worth ; or about the 
pains of hell, as though I did not know that they were 
hard to be endured. I am willing to save that sinner ; I 
am desirous of it — unspeakably more so than you can be. 
My desires for his salvation have been such that I have 
given my only-begotten and well-beloved Son to die for 
him on the cross. Why cry to me for mercy ? I have al- 
ready said, that if he will confess and forsake his sins, he 
shall have mercy. Why plead thus with me ? Go plead 
with the guilty man to confess and forsake his sins, and 
then his salvation will be sure." — p. 106. 

The reader will not be at a loss to determine what de- 
nomination of Christians Mr. F. has reference to, in the 
passage just quoted. To make his allusions definite, he 
quotes the common and well-known phraseology of Me- 
thodists. 

He goes on, and, in the course of his argument, applies 
this reasoning to the case of the pious wife praying for 
the irreligious husband, and to that of parents praying for 
their children. 

He supposes the husband to be lost, notwithstanding 



NEW DIVINITY — PRAYER. 221 

the prayers of the wife, and inquires, "Why were not the 
many earnest prayers of that pious wife heard in behalf 
of her husband ? She prayed for that for which she had 
no need to pray. She prayed that God would have mercy 
on him. God had had mercy on him, and sent his Son to 
die for him. She prayed that he might be saved. God 
was more than willing, yea, unspeakably desirous that he 
should be saved : and if he were to speak from heaven 
now, he would say, 4 As I live, I have no pleasure in his 
death.' 

" Instead of taking God's part against her husband, and 
labouring to persuade him to be reconciled to God, she 
was actually taking her husband's part, and endeavouring 
to persuade God to be reconciled to him. Who cannot 
see that such must necessarily be a hopeless undertaking?" 

He thinks that he has detected, in this practice, " a rea- 
son why a great multitude of prayers offered for the sal- 
vation of sinners are never heard." 

Were it not that there are a few passages of Scripture 
scattered along the pages of Mr. Fitch's book, we might 
be led to wonder whether, in the search for families and 
individuals destitute of the Bible, Mr. Fitch had not been 
overlooked, and to recommend his case to the attention of 
the agents of the American Bible Society. Will he apply 
his illustration respecting the thief to the case of the pub- 
lican, who prayed, " God be merciful to me a sinner ;" or 
to the case of blind Bartimeus, who prayed, " Jesus, thou 
Son of David, have mercy on me ;" or to the case of the 
psalmist, who prayed, " Have mercy upon me, 0 God, ac- 
cording to thy loving kindness ; according to the multitude 
of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions ?" Were 
these prayers an abomination to God ? Did they not imply 
the unwillingness of God to save, as much as similar 
prayers at the present day ? And then, with respect to 
prayers offered up for others, has he not read that the 



222 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



Saviour prayed thus for his enemies and murderers, " Fa- 
ther, forgive them, for they know not what they do V 9 It 
was in this way that " he made intercession for the trans- 
gressors," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. Has he 
not read how Stephen prayed for his persecutors : " He 
kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not 
this sin to their charge ?" Does he suppose that if God had 
spoken to the Saviour and to Stephen, he would have said, 
" Why cry to me for mercy 1 I have already said, that if 
they will confess and forsake their sins, they shall have 
mercy. Why plead thus with me 1 Go plead with the 
guilty men to confess and forsake their sins, and then their 
salvation will be sure ?" 

Mr. Finney attempts to dispose of the Saviour's example 
by trifling with the words, " for they know not what they 
do." He says, " And in that case it was true — they did 
not know what they were doing, for they did not believe 
that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. But it cannot be said 
of sinners under the gospel that they do not know what 
they are doing. They do know what they are doing. They 
do not see the extent of it ; but they do know that they 
are sinning against God and rejecting Christ, and the 
difficulty is, they are unwilling to submit to God." — Lec- 
tures, p. 329. 

But this criticism defeats itself. It is intended to make 
out such a difference between the murderers of the Sa- 
viour, and sinners generally, as shall justify prayer in the 
one case, and condemn it in the other; and yet it makes 
their cases essentially alike. Sinners generally know what 
they are doing, but " they do not see the full extent of it." 
And was not this precisely the case with those for whom 
the Saviour prayed ? Did they not know that they were 
sinning against God ? Did they not know that they had 
unjustly and malignantly procured the condemnation of 
Jesus Christ ? Certainly they did. But then there were 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



223 



some things they did not know. There were conse- 
quences which they did not foresee, and our Saviour 
kindly includes this consideration in his prayer. At any 
rate, the prayer must have had reference to those princi- 
ples and acts for which they were guilty and liable to be 
punished. 

But if it is unnecessary to pray that God would have 
mercy on sinners, and forgive them, because he is already 
willing, it is, for the same reason, unnecessary to pray for 
them at all. It is true, Mr. Fitch halts before he comes 
to this legitimate conclusion ; but we cannot imagine how 
any man of ordinary acumen could avoid perceiving it. 
He insists strenuously on praying for the sinner; but what 
blessings are we to ask for him ? We are thus informed, 
" And when they bow their knees to pray for him, let them 
not cry for mercy as though it was a doubtful case whe- 
ther God was willing to exercise mercy, but let them pray 
to God to send the Holy Ghost into his heart, to 4 reprove 
him of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment,' " &c. He 
also insists on " the importance of faith in prayer." So it 
seems that God is willing to have mercy on sinners, 
and therefore we need not pray for that ; but he is not 
willing to send the Holy Ghost into their hearts, and bring 
them to repentance. It is, at least, " a doubtful case 
and we must endeavour to change his mind in this respect, 
and make him willing by prayer, and even then he will 
not be willing, unless we pray in faith. 

Indeed, we have often been led to suspect, that when 
prayer has been offered for sinners by New School preach- 
ers, it has not been offered on the supposition that any 
thing would be obtained in answer to prayer, but merely 
as a part of the machinery of moral suasion. The poor 
sinner has been mercilessly belaboured by the petitioner. 
God has been told what a vile, infamous, hard-hearted 
rebel was before him. Doubts have been expressed whe- 



224 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 



tiler the Holy Ghost would ever visit the sinner again, if 
he should not submit now. Their prayers have appeared 
to be intended, not to obtain a blessing from God, but to 
operate on the sensibilities of the sinner, and frighten him 
into the submission demanded. 

The tendency of Mr. Fitch's reasoning is obviously to do 
away prayer altogether. For the sinner, or the Christian, 
to pray for mercy on himself or others is unnecessary, 
because God is already willing to have mercy. On the 
same principle it is unnecessary for them to pray for any 
thing that God is willing to confer. But as it may safely 
be presumed that God is willing to confer on his people 
whatever is for their good, and unwilling to confer nothing 
but what is injurious, the necessity of prayer is wholly 
superseded. 

Thus we see to what fearful issues we are conducted. 
It would not be surprising to hear such objections to 
prayer from a Universalist or a Deist ; but to hear them 
from a modern revivalist, a minister of that class to which 
the term evangelical is supposed to have a special ap- 
plicability, is truly alarming. But New Divinity is on the 
high road to Deism. 

Is it not high time that a general and persevering effort 
were made to open the eyes of the public mind to the cha- 
racter and tendencies of this theory, and especially to 
make the difference between New Divinity and Methodism 
clearly apparent? 

But why this clamorous opposition to prayer as a means 
of obtaining mercy ? If one single indivisible act of the 
mind is sufficient to make a man a Christian, and the very 
first which conforms to the law of God be the act in ques- 
tion ; if it makes no difference, as we have been told, what 
may be the specific form of obedient agency which the 
act presents ; why may not the first act of prayer be that 
which introduces the important change 1 We now venture 



NEW DIVINITY PRAYER. 225 

to predict, that when the advocates of New Divinity are 
compelled to change their ground respecting sinners pray- 
ing for mercy and salvation, as will most assuredly be the 
case, they will become as strenuous in recommending, as 
they now are in opposing it ; and that too, without chang- 
ing their general theory. They will proceed on the prin- 
ciple, that the first obedient act makes the Christian, and 
that prayer is that act. It is true, that they will be incon- 
sistent, but not more so than in enjoining any other act. 
They will then appear to be approaching still more closely 
to Methodism, while they are as far from it as ever. 
The resemblance will be only in outward appearance. 
They will enjoin prayer on the principle that the act of 
prayer for mercy changes the heart. This is our pro- 
phecy. We may be mistaken. 

It is supposed that these objections to the prayer of the 
sinner for salvation are sustained by those texts of Scrip- 
ture which affirm that " the prayer of the wicked is an 
abomination," &c. That there are certain states of mind 
which would render prayer an abomination to God, can- 
not be doubted. For instance, when prayer is hypocritical. 
Also, when it is offered by him who, at the same time, in- 
tends to live in sin, and has no desire to become holy. 
But the case is materially altered when it is the prayer of 
one who deplores his sins and sinfulness, and desires 
to be pardoned and sanctified. That this text includes 
such among the wicked whose prayer is an abomination, 
is, we think, extremely doubtful. We know it does not, 
for they are both commanded and encouraged to pray. 

10* 



226 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 



CHAPTER XXL 

MEANS OF GRACE. 

It is sufficiently manifest that while the advocates of 
this system entertain a special dislike to the practice of 
praying to God for pardon and regeneration, the system it- 
self operates with similar and equally destructive effect on all 
the means of grace. If one single act of the mind changes 
a man from an impenitent rebel to a Christian, and he has 
a natural ability to perform that act at any moment, so 
that the sole obstacle to its instant performance is his un- 
willingness, then all the acts by which that one is pre- 
ceded must be rebellious ; and to perform them, with the 
view of securing the favour of God, while that one act, 
which would accomplish the purpose at once, is wilfully 
declined, must be the most flagrant mockery of divine au- 
thority. While, therefore, this principle sweeps away 
prayer, by the same process it makes the same disposi- 
tion of all the other conditional and preparatory exercises. 

This tendency of the principles and arguments of New 
Divinity has been repeatedly developed in several of the 
preceding chapters, and we now call the attention of the 
reader to it for the purpose of showing in what light the 
subject is regarded by the leading promulgators of that 
theory. To us the inference is irresistible, that the sin- 
ner has nothing to do with the means of grace. What 
then do they teach respecting this matter ? 

Mr. Duffield is explicit. He devotes a whole chapter 
to the subject of the means of grace ; and expresses his 
sentiments as follows : — " Surely, such exhortations as 
the following, cannot fail to have a most deleterious influ- 
ence. 6 Now, my dear young friends, here is your duty, 
you are called to believe in Christ, and to exercise re- 
pentance unto life. But you are not called, but forbidden 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 227 

to attempt this duty in your own strength.' It is well that 
the feelings of many counteract the influence of their 
theory ; and that the exhortations, suggested alike by the 
sacred Scriptures and by common sense, notwithstanding 
a mystic theology, are addressed to the consciences of 
sinners, to urge them to instant repentance. The exhorta- 
tions 1 to seek' and 'pray' and ' strive' and ' use the 
means' which are sometimes substituted for those which 
it is explicitly given in charge to the minister of Christ to 
urge, cannot fail to perplex, bewilder, distract." — p. 544. 

Again : " Take the confession of a young man, which 
has recently been spread before the churches, and whose 
clear discriminating mind required better counsellors than 
it seems to have been his lot to meet : ' I was almost 
ready to despair ; but I remembered that God's arm was 
not shortened, that it could not save, and I determined 
never to cease from striving : but even this, I knew was what 
I would not be able to do of myself. This continued to be 
my state, with but little variation, for more than a week. 
After listening, with great interest, to preaching, and talk- 
ing with Christians,' he adds, ' nothing they said, however, 
gave me much encouragement. It was only " strive," 
" seek," "ask," " knock." That I was ready to do ; and 
for the few days past this darkness has been breaking 
away, and in its place a calm assurance has been suc- 
ceeding.' " — Ibid. 

Here is, we think, a case of genuine conversion ; and 
yet Mr. D. cites it for the purpose of throwing suspicion 
upon it, and of condemning the instructions which the indi- 
vidual received and the course he pursued. He says, 
" The writer of these confessions may have become such 
[a Christian] ; but other evidence of the fact, than that 
which he intimates influences his judgment in the case, 
is indispensably necessary." After some farther comment 
in the same strain, he adds, " The above is merely selected 



228 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

as a specimen of the practical bearing of the counsels 
given by those, who, instead of directing at once to the 
Saviour, and spreading the truth which is to be believed 
before the mind, and exposing the guilt and danger of 
every moment's delay to repent, and requiring it, as by 
the authority of God, to be instantly done — exhort to 
pray, and read the Bible, and use the means of grace — 
seeking, knocking, striving after faith and repentance, 
and what not." — p. 545. 

We do not care to answer either the sophistry or the 
sneers contained in the above remarks. It would be per- 
fectly easy to show that the directions which seem to ex- 
cite his contempt are just such as were given by Jesus 
Christ himself ; but our object is to present the sentiments 
of Mr. D. respecting the means of grace, and we think that 
there is no danger of misunderstanding them. 

Again he says, " If you direct him to use the means, as 
conducing to his salvation, or to make any other effort 
than the one all essential, you do actually soothe him, for 
the present, and for the present keep him from Christ." 
—p. 547. 

Again : " To tell him to do any act as conducive to his 
salvation prior to his full and actual compliance with the 
claims of God for his heart, is to tell him to do what God 
abhors, and cannot accept, and in which he may rest to his 
everlasting perdition." — p. 550. 

Again : "But, as he would not throw the soul, on the 
very threshold of the kingdom, immeasurably, and perhaps 
eternally, back, let him beware how he directs him to pray, 
or to use the means, lest he comfort him in his rebellion." 
—p. 548. 

On this subject, a writer in the Christian Spectator 
remarks, " There can be no real using of the means of 
grace except at the indivisible moment of time when, re- 
nouncing his selfish feelings, the sinner contemplates di- 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 229 

vine truth as the power of God unto salvation, and instantly 
obeys its dictates. Any thing short of this is not a use, 
but an abuse of the means of grace." — Vol. v, No. 1, page 
35. The amount of this is obviously that the only means 
of grace for the sinner to use is the one single act of obe- 
dience performed " at the indivisible moment of time" 
when he changes his own heart. 

Take one passage from Mr. Finney, to whom belongs 
the credit of a fearless presentation of his system, let it 
lead to what consequences it may. In his lecture on 
" false comforts for sinners," he places among false com- 
forts " telling a sinner he must use the raeansT He en- 
larges on this point as follows : " Tell an anxious sinner 
this — You must use the means, and he is relieved. " 0, 
yes, I will do that, if that is all. I thought that God re- 
quired me to repent and submit to him now. But if using 
the means will answer, I will do it with all my heart." 
He was distressed before because he was cornered up, and 
did not know which way to turn. Conscience had beset 
him like a wall of fire, and urged him to repent now. But 
this relieves him at once, and he feels better, and is very 
thankful, he says, that he found such a good adviser in his 
distress. But he may use the means, as he calls it, till the 
day of judgment, and not be a particle the better for it, but 
will only hasten his way to death. What is the sinner's 
use of means but rebellion against God ? God uses 
means. The Church uses means to convert and save 
sinners, to bear down upon them, and bring them to sub- 
mission. But what has the sinner to do with using means ? 
Will you set him to using means back upon God, and so 
make an offset in the matter ? Or is he to use means to 
make himself submit to God ? How shall he go to work 
with his means to make himself submit ? It is just telling 
the sinner, 1 You need not submit to God now, but just 
use the means awhile, and see if you cannot melt God's 



230 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

heart down to yon, so that he will yield this point of un- 
conditional submission.' It is a mere cavil to evade the 
duty of immediate submission to God. It is true, that sin- 
ners, actuated by a regard for their own happiness, often 
give attention to the subject of religion, attend meetings, 
and pray, and read, and many such things. But in all this, 
they have no regard to the honour of God, nor do they so 
much as mean to obey him. Their design is not obedience, 
for if it were they would not be impenitent sinners. They 
are not, therefore, using the means of grace to be Christians, 
but to obtain pardon and a hope. It is absurd to say that 
an impenitent sinner is using means to repent, for this is 
the same as to say that he is willing to repent, or, in other 
words, that he does repent, and is not an impenitent sinner. 
So, to say that an unconverted man uses means with a design 
to become a Christian, is a contradiction, for it is saying, 
that he is willing to be a Christian, which is the same as 
to say, that he is a Christian already." — p. 317. 

In the foregoing quotations we have not only a distinct 
avowal of the doctrine which we have charged on the ad- 
vocates of New Divinity, but likewise a clear illustration 
of its connection with other parts of their system. The 
impenitent rebel has a natural ability, by one single " in- 
divisible act of the mind," which may be performed in one 
" indivisible moment of time," to change his heart and 
make himself a Christian. Of course, to say that he is 
using means to become a Christian while he is not a 
Christian is absurd ; for he could become a Christian at 
any moment if he were willing. Mr. F. reasons unanswer- 
ably from his own principles when he undertakes to show 
that the means of grace are unnecessary and injurious. I f 
is a plain inference. Let them do at once the one thing 
that will make them Christians. While they refuse to do 
this, the use of the means of grace can only postpone the 
change, and protract their rebellion. 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 231 

The advocates of error are frequently compelled to take 
refuge in the most glaring contradictions, or run their 
theories out into the most revolting absurdities. In this 
dilemma New Divinity places its advocates, and they are 
sometimes found hanging on one horn, sometimes on the 
other. The principle on which they base their objections 
to prayer for mercy, and the " use of the means" in gene- 
ral, would, if faithfully adhered to, require them to discou- 
rage the reading of the Bible, religious tracts and periodi- 
cals, or other religious publications ; as also, to discourage 
religious conversation, attending places of worship, or the 
performance of any other act, on the part of the unrenew- 
ed, with the view of becoming Christians. Apply to any 
one of these acts the reasoning which is applied to prayer, 
and using the means of grace in order to become reli- 
gious, and the result is, that it is impenitent and rebellious. 
This Mr. Duffield affirms in the following, which has al- 
ready been quoted : — 

"If you direct him to use the means, as conducing to his 
salvation, or to make any other effort than the one all-essen- 
tial, you do actually soothe him for the present, and for 
the present keep him from Christ." " To tell him to per- 
form any act, as conducive to his full and actual compli- 
ance with the claims of God for his heart, is to tell him 
to do what God abhors, and cannot accept, and in which he 
may rest to his everlasting perdition." 

If, then, New Divinity be true, nobody should read the 
Bible, pray, attend the house of God and hear his word, 
but Christians. To encourage others to do any of these 
things as conducive to their becoming Christians, is to 
:< keep them from Christ" " comfort them in their rebel- 
lion," and tell them " to do what God abhors." 

Ministers of this faith, to be consistent, should warn all 
unconverted persons against doing any of these, from such 
a motive. But to attempt to carry this theory out in prac- 



232 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

tice would arouse both piety and common sense to indig- 
nant and desperate revolt. They are therefore compelled 
to contradict their doctrines by their every-day practice. 
The most galling fire of their logic is poured into their 
own ranks. 

Nor are they less inconsistent in their doctrinal state- 
ments than in their practice. Mr. Duffield talks about 
" preliminary processes." " The attention of the mind re- 
quisite to perceive truth, the fixing and dwelling on it ne- 
cessary to feel it, the apprehension of the evidence that in- 
deed it is truth, and the actual consenting unto it as pro- 
posed, — these are all involved in those preliminary mental 
processes, which the injunction to believe and repent im- 
plies, and which have a natural tendency to issue exactly in 
the exercises of faith and repentance. If then such things 
be called using the means of grace, we shall not object. 
But certainly this is not the ordinary, and theological use 
of the phrase." — p. 551. So it seems that after all, Mr. 
D. has no objection to the sinner's " using the means of 
grace," if he will only use those for which Mr. D. has a 
preference. It is using the means of grace in " the ordi- 
nary and theological use of the phrase" to which he ob- 
jects so strenuously. Let the awakened sinner only avoid 
the wicked and unscriptural practice enjoined by the 
Methodists, of praying, reading the Bible, " seeking, knock- 
ing, striving after faith and repentance, and what not," and 
Mr. D. is satisfied. But cannot he perceive — cannot any 
one, who is capable of reasoning, perceive that his ob- 
jections to one class of means are equally fatal to the 
other? What are those "preliminary mental processes," 
but " acts" and " efforts" preceding the " one" " indivisi- 
ble" and " all-essential" act, and " conducing" to it ? Are 
we not compelled, by consistency, to class them with 
those " any other efforts" which Mr. D. so pointedly con- 
demns, as calculated to soothe the sinner for the present, 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE, 



233 



and for the present keep him from Christ? Mr. D.'s sys- 
tem places him in this dilemma — either the man is, in 
some degree, penitent and believing when he enters upon 
these preliminary processes, or he is wholly impenitent and 
unbelieving. If the latter, he does " what God abhors 
and cannot accept." If the former, he is already a Chris- 
tian, and the preliminary processes are all reduced to sub- 
sequent processes. Perhaps it may be replied, that " to 
require the sinner to repent and believe, without these 
preliminary processes, would be absurd." No doubt of 
that ; but not more so than is the whole system of New 
Divinity. 

"We might furnish a long list of similar incongruities, 
collected from writers of this school, but the examples 
given are fair specimens of the rest. 

There can be no difficulty now in understanding what 
is meant by the New School writers and preachers when 
they speak of immediate repentance, immediate submis- 
sion, &c.,and complain that these are not sufficiently insist- 
ed upon. They do not mean, by immediate submission, im- 
mediately entering upon those preparatory and conditional 
performances, which, if persevered in, will eventuate in 
regeneration. They mean the immediate performance of 
some single indivisible act of the mind, without taking any 
previous steps as conducing to it, which they suppose to 
change a man, in one moment, from a state of the most de- 
cided enmity to God, to the condition of a Christian. No 
matter how plausible the general terms are, in which they 
choose to describe this act — whether they call it a change 
of heart, a new birth, or a new creation, they mean no- 
thing more than one single act, which the worst man has 
a natural ability to perform at any moment, without prayer, 
or reading the word of God, or using any of the means of 
grace. With respect to the nature of this act, it is no mat- 
ter what its specific form may be. It is the very first act 



234 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

of obedience to the requirements of God, whether that act 
be a sincere desire or determination to be a Christian, or a 
single movement of repentance, or of faith, or of gratitude 
to God. And it is because we do not preach this doctrine, 
that we are represented as encouraging the sinner in re- 
bellion, and keeping him away from Christ, and as failing 
to urge the sinner to instant submission ! ! 

There is one feature in Mr. Duffield's discussion of the 
subject which is somewhat amusing. After having de- 
scribed, in his own way, the course of those who, instead 
of directing the sinner to immediate submission, " exhort 
to pray, and read the Bible, and use the means of grace — 
seeking, knocking, striving after faith and repentance, and 
what not," he says, " Now against all such theory and 
practice we enter our solemn protest. It is contrary to 
the principles of common sense. That teaches us to 
direct the attention specifically and directly toward the 
result to be secured. The means, or process, by which 
that result is to be obtained, are, in many cases, instinct- 
ively discovered, and while requiring and urging the final 
issue, every one feels that the preliminary processes which, 
in the nature of things, are necessary to secure it, are 
also required. But to direct the attention first to these, is, 
in fact, to cause the mind virtually to lose sight of the great 
end to be secured." — p. 545. 

It is not for the purpose of noticing the contradiction 
involved in the admission that " preliminary processes" 
are " in the nature of things necessary" to conversion, 
that we call attention to this singular passage. What we 
have in view is the declaration, that the " means" are " in- 
stinctively discovered," and that " to direct the attention" 
of the inquirer " first to these, is, to cause" him " to lose 
sight of the great end to be secured." We think it very 
probable that if the true means are not instinctively, or 
otherwise discovered, independently of Mr. D.'s instrac- 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 235 

tions, they will go undiscovered. But let us try this doc- 
trine of instinctive discovery and directing first to the 
end, &c. 

The man who, under the Jewish law, accidentally killed 
another, was liable to be immediately killed by the relative 
of the slain. But there were certain cities, called cities 
of refuge, to which he might flee and be secure from the 
avenger of blood. A man has killed his fellow. His 
friend urges him to flee instantly to the nearest city of 
refuge. He does not know the way. His friend is en- 
gaged in giving him directions, when up comes a sage 
rabbi, who interferes thus : " I enter my solemn protest 
against the manner in which you are instructing that indi- 
vidual. Direct his attention directly and specifically to 
the city itself. This talk about the road he is to pursue 
cannot fail to perplex, bewilder, and distract him. It 
diverts his attention from the city itself. Fly instantly to 
the city. You will discover the road instinctively." Who 
does not perceive that in this case the rabbi would have 
but little ground on which to establish his claims to supe- 
rior wisdom ? Now* we take this rabbi as the representa- 
tive of Mr. D. ; and while we would most sincerely "enter 
our protest against his instructions," we will decline at 
present entering our solemn protest. 



236 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

MEANS OF GRACE CONTINUED. 

Although the teachers of this system fail to conform 
their practice to their theory in some instances, we must 
not suppose that this is the case in every instance. Mr. 
Duffield informs us, that these doctrines influence their 
" whole system of spiritual tactics." This fact is specially 
exemplified on the subject of prayer, as a means of ob- 
taining salvation. 

Here is one of the leading points of difference between 
the New School Calvinists and the Methodists, in the 
treatment of awakened sinners. Let any close and intel- 
ligent observer attend alternately the meetings of these 
denominations, while both are in the midst of a revival, 
and he will find, that while the Methodists invariably urge 
on the inquirer, not only to decide instantly and fully in 
favour of the service of God, to repent and believe the 
gospel, but likewise to pray for the regenerating influences 
of the Holy Spirit, and especially for the forgiveness of 
sins, the other party decline altogether these exhortations 
to prayer. They exhort to immediate decision, or re- 
pentance, or faith — acts which they consider identical with, 
or at least equivalent to, each other. They employ power- 
ful arguments to enforce their exhortations. They call 
on the church to pray for the sinner, but they do not re- 
quire him to pray for himself. We speak what we know, 
and testify what we have seen. Great pains have been 
taken, on our part, to obtain information on these subjects, 
and we are fully assured not only of our intention to speak 
the truth, but of the correctness of what we affirm. We 
have attended revival meetings, both in Philadelphia and 



NEW DIVINITY- — MEANS OF GRACE. 237 

m New- York, in some of the leading and most successful 
churches under the influence of New Divinity, for the pur- 
pose of observing their manner of proceeding. We have 
seen, at the close of the sermon, nearly, if not quite, two 
hundred persons, go, as inquirers, to the pews assigned 
them near the pulpit. We have heard them addressed on 
the subject of their duty, urged to the performance of it — 
and in all that was said to them there was not a single 
exhortation to pray for pardon and regeneration. One or 
two prayers were offered in their behalf, and they were 
dismissed. W T e have been solicited to preach at protracted 
meetings conducted on the principles of New Divinity ; 
and. feeling no reluctance to do what we could consist- 
entry, have accepted these invitations. We have attended 
one or two inquiry meetings, and seen this theory carried 
out, by addressing inquirers as Christians, merely because 
they had fully made up their minds to become the ser- 
vants of God, without one exhortation to pray, or to seek 
for justification by faith and a change of heart ; and we 
have been led to grapple with painful doubts, whether 
we were doing right in silently bidding God speed to a 
system which trifles so egregiously with the awful inte- 
rests of eternity. 

Some may be ready to ask with astonishment, Do they 
not direct inquirers to bow the knee in prayer ? Have we 
not seen them kneel down by hundreds, in compliance 
with this direction ? We doubt not that such scenes have 
been witnessed. But if any have inferred from this fact 
merely, that the duty of prayer for mercy and salvation 
was enjoined on those inquirers, they have doubtless been 
misled. According to the account, published in the New- 
York Evangelist for January 13, 1838, of a revival in the 
Seventh Presbyterian Church, under the pastoral care of the 
Rev. Mr. Hatfield, this very course was pursued : but the 
reason cf their bowing the knee is explained by Mr. H. 



238 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

himself. " The anxious were invited after sermon to the 
lecture-room ; and, it was thought, more than three hun- 
dred assembled there deeply affected. An unusually large 
proportion of these were men. Nearly all of these bowed 
the knee during prayer, in token of their willingness to give 
up all for Christ, and determination to grieve the Holy Spirit 
no moreP Again : " Although there was a very heavy 
rain on Thursday evening, the congregation was very 
large, and one hundred inquirers met after sermon in the 
lecture-room. When called to how the knee in token of sub' 
scribing themselves to be the Lord's, all but three or four 
instantly complied, and gladly, with the invitation." The 
object of this movement is plainly stated. It was not that 
they might pray for forgiveness and spiritual influence, 
that they were " called to bow the knee," but merely that 
they might furnish an outward indication of " their deter- 
mination to grieve the Holy Spirit no more," &c. While 
this revival was going on, there was also in the same 
neighbourhood a Methodist revival of great power, in 
which " inquirers" w ere " called upon to bow the knee ;" 
but not merely as a token of their sincere determination, 
henceforth, to become the servants of God, but that they 
might carry out that determination, by godly sorrow for 
sin, by penitential confession, by calling upon God in per- 
severing prayer, until he should forgive their sins, regene- 
rate them, and grant them the evidence of their acceptance 
with God, and peace and joy through believing. 

The preachers of New Divinity may pursue a great va- 
riety of measures without departing from the leading 
principles of their system. As, according to their gospel, 
sinners are converted by moral suasion, they will, of 
course, adopt those measures which, all things con- 
sidered, appear most likely to persuade them to that de- 
termination which is supposed to constitute conversion. 
They may differ in opinion as to what particular measures 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 239 

are best adapted to the human constitution. Or, to sup- 
pose them perfectly agreed on this point, they may, from 
certain considerations, consent to vary their measures, 
preferring some at one time, because they have the ad- 
vantage of novelty, or because there is a great partiality 
for them — and declining the same at another time, because 
there are powerful prejudices against them. 

In some -instances, and in places where the influence 
of Methodism has been considerable, they have invited 
awakened sinners to the altar, and called forward the Me- 
thodist brethren to assist in giving instructions, just as if 
there were a perfect agreement of opinion as to the in- 
structions to be given. This, we have been informed, 
was done by Mr. Finney when he first set out. It is true, 
the Methodists did not work altogether to his satisfaction, 
as may be seen by reading his lecture on " False Com- 
forts for Sinners," where Methodistic prayers and in- 
structions are held up to ridicule ; but then this was, on 
the whole, his best policy. It served to hide from obser- 
vation the great difference between New Divinity and 
Methodism, at a time when the perception of it might have 
operated very unfavourably, and also to enlist the sympa- 
thies and suffrages of Methodism against Old School op- 
position. Generally, inquirers have been invited to the 
anxious seats near the pulpit, to be instructed and prayed 
for. In many instances, they are required to withdraw 
from the congregation to the lecture-room. What takes 
place there, except in one or two instances, we are not 
prepared to affirm. These meetings are conducted with 
considerable privacy, but, from what we have occasionally 
heard, we have reason to believe, that there the principles 
of New Divinity have their freest and fullest development 
and application. The Rev. Mr. Welton says of the " in- 
quiry meetings" held by Mr. Burchard in Poughkeepsie, 
" Here, under God, lies much of the strength of Br. B., 



240 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

and persons who have not been present at those meetings 
can form but an imperfect idea of the plan of operation, 
and the amount of doctrinal knowledge communicated to 
the hopeful convert. Here they have demonstration so 
clear and lucid that many soon appear like old and expe- 
rienced Christians." The meetings at which such a vast 
amount of doctrinal knowledge was communicated, were 
held " after the public services had closed." — N. Y. Evan- 
gelist, No. 387. 

With respect to the means of ascertaining who have 
submitted, we observe an equal variety. Sometimes they 
are required to leave one set of seats, and take another, 
as a token of submission ; sometimes to rise up in the 
congregation, and sometimes to " bow the knee." In one 
of the numbers of the New-York Evangelist for July, 1837, 
there is an account of a revival, under the direction of 
Rev. Mr. Foote, in which it is particularly stated, that all 
new measures were avoided. The gospel was preached, 
and the congregations dismissed as at ordinary times, and 
those who had " made the wise choice" were invited to 
meet with the people of God to be addressed as Chris- 
tians. This is all perfectly consistent with the New School 
theology. 

We would not be understood to affirm that they never 
direct the sinner to pray. In the little book by Dr. Skin- 
ner and President Beecher, to which we have several 
times referred, there is the following direction : " After 
you shall have prayed with him, it may sometimes be use- 
ful to call on him to pray for himself." We are not to 
suppose, however, that this is a concession in favour of 
Methodist principles and practice. It is not intended that 
the sinner shall be directed to pray for mercy, in expecta- 
tion of receiving it in answer to prayer. To suppose that 
it is so intended, would be to array the authors, not only 
against their brethren of the same school, but also against 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 241 

themselves ; for they explicitly direct that the sinner shall 
be told, that to become religious is an intelligent, volun- 
tary, indivisible act of the mind, in which he ceases to 
rebel against God, submits to his authority, and accepts 
of his mercy ; and that to perform this act requires no 
length of time, and no protracted effort ; that it may be 
done at this time, and in this place ; and that if he departs 
from this place without performing this act, he goes in a 
spirit of stouter rebellion, and may bring upon himself 
swift and sudden destruction. — p. 42. 

We would here ask, on what principle the sinner shall 
be directed to pray for mercy, when he can become reli- 
gious without prayer, by one voluntary, indivisible act of 
the mind, which requires no length of time, but may be 
done at this time, and in this place 1 Either the first act 
of prayer must be the act in which he ceases to rebel 
against God, submits to his authority, accepts his mercy, 
and becomes religious, or he is directed to perform a re- 
bellious act as conducive to his submission. Suppose he 
departs from the place of conversation to his chamber to 
pray ; if he has not already performed the act which 
makes him a Christian, " he goes on in a spirit of stouter 
rebellion." In short, here is an exhortation to the prac- 
tice, which elsewhere they so unsparingly condemn, on 
directing persons to pray whom they profess to consider 
" impenitent sinners." 

But this direction to pray, it would seem, is not to be 
given indiscriminately. It is only " sometimes" that this 
practice " may be useful." If this be the case, w^ill there 
not be difficulty in determining when it is proper to resort 
to it? We would suggest one rule, for the guidance of 
those concerned. When the doctrine, that a man may 
change his own heart, without prayer, at any moment, is 
likely to shock the feelings and understanding of the indi- 
vidual to whom it is addressed, and excite suspicions of 

11 



242 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

dangerous error, as may easily be the case, if he has been 
Methodistically educated, then it may " be useful to call 
on him to pray for himself." 

Having contemplated the ravages of New Divinity on 
those means of grace by which, according to God's ap- 
pointment, the sinner secures the forgiveness of his sins, 
and the renewal of his nature, we proceed to trace still 
further its desolating career. We now find ourselves guided 
to the conclusion that the hardened sinner may become a 
Christian, without any of those deep and painful convictions 
for sin which constitute godly sorrow, such as Peter felt 
when he went out and wept bitterly; and that these exercises, 
so far from entering essentially into the nature of repentance 
and submission, as the Methodists suppose, are indicative of 
and caused by, rebellion against God. The process of rea- 
soning by which we arrive at this point has been reiterated 
aoain and again. Regeneration is one indivisible act of 
the mind, which the sinner has a natural ability to perform 
at any moment. Of course, for him to be crying and wail- 
ing over his depravity, and exposure to punishment, is ab- 
surd and inexcusable. It is quite as bad as praying for 
forgiveness while he refuses to perform his immediate 
duty. Let him do what he is all along perversely refusing 
to do, and the cause of his distress will be instantly re- 
moved. This he might have done at the commencement 
of his disquietude, or even before it commenced, and thus 
prevented it altogether. 

In accordance with this obvious tendency of the system, 
Mr. Finney says, in his lecture on " False Comforts for 
Sinners," " What is all his distress but rebellion itself 
He is not comforted, because he refuses to be comforted. 
God is ready to comfort him. You need not think to be 
more compassionate than God. He will fill him with 
comfort in an instant if he will submit. But there he stands 
struggling against God, and against the Holy Ghost, and 



HEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 243 

against conscience, until he is distressed almost to death, and 
still he will not yield" — p. 314. 

It is plain that Mr. F. does not consider any part of the 
inquirer's distress as the consequence of voluntarily yield- 
ing to the Spirit of God, or as constituting repentance or 
godly sorrow for sin. It is solely the consequence of re- 
bellion. " If he would submit," or, in other words of this 
same author, if he would " yield one point to divine au- 
thority," God would comfort him in an instant. On the 
same page he adds, " It is his clear view of the nature 
and duty of repentance that produces his distress. It is 
the light that brings agony to his mind while he refuses to 
obey" So far, it seems, from this distress constituting re- 
pentance, or belonging to it, it is owing solely to the sinner's 
refusing to repent. He sees the nature and duty of re- 
pentance- — he refuses to obey, and hence his distress. 

In another lecture, he says, " Another error is in sup- 
posing that they must suffer a considerable time under convic- 
tion, as a kind of punishment, before they are ready properly 
to come to Christ. And so they will pray for conviction. 
And they think that if they are ground down to the earth 
with distress, for a sufficient time, then God will pity 
them, and be more ready to help them, when he sees them 
so very miserable. They should be made to understand 
clearly that they are thus unhappy and miserable, merely 
because they refuse to accept the relief which God offers. 
Take the case of the stubborn child, when his parent 
stands over him with the rod, and the child shudders and 
screams. Should that child imagine he is gaining any 
thing by his agony 1 His distress arises from his convic- 
tion, and shall he pray for more conviction? Does that 
make him any better ? Does his father pity him any more 
because he stands out ? "Who does not see that he is all 
the while growing worse V 9 — p. 345. 

This passage fully declares Mr. Finney's views. The 



244 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

sinner, whose spirit is deeply troubled on account of his 
character and condition, is like the stubborn child under 
the rod, who " shudders and screams," and is in " agony," 
but yet " stands out" — the whole cause of whose agony 
is his rebellion, which makes the use of the rod necessary. 
He is miserable, merely because he refuses to accept the 
relief. His conviction makes him no better, but, on the 
contrary, he grows worse and worse. 

It is not our intention to endorse the doctrine, that it is 
necessary to "suffer a considerable time under conviction, 
as a kind of punishment." We are strongly inclined to 
look upon this representation as an intentional caricature 
of the true doctrine. Mr. Finney's doctrine is, that no 
distress of mind is strictly necessary to repentance, whe- 
ther as a punishment or a blessing. 

"VVe find these sentiments clearly affirmed in a Sermon 
on Sanctification, by the Rev. Daniel A. Clark, published 
in the National Preacher. 

He remarks — " Another question may here very pro- 
perly be asked, When does holiness begin ? And the an- 
swer is obvious. It begins at the moment of regeneration. 
Till then all the exercises are unholy ; for the carnal mind 
is enmity against God. Nor is there any degree of alarm, 
or any amount of conviction, that can generate a holy af- 
fection in the heart previously to that period. Of course, 
all the prayers offered, and all the exertions made, pre- 
viously to this change, are all unregenerate prayers and 
exertions. Nor can it be believed consistently with cor- 
rect Scripture views, that, anterior to this moment, there 
is any approximation toward correct feeling. No alarm, nor 
the most distinct conviction, can bring an unregenerate man 
to feel more correctly toward God, or an unholy object, than 
he did in a state of carelessness and security" 

Again : " And then it may be a question, whether the 
sinner, under alarm, does not wax worse and worse, till the 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 



245 



moment of passing from death unto life ? If lie has more 
light — if he see-s more distinctly the objects of his im- 
placable hatred, does he not obviously rise in hatred, till it 
is changed into love?" — No. 118. 

This doctrine is also contained in the following passage 
from Dr. Skinner and President Beecher's " Hints," &c 
" Studiously avoid, in all your directions and prayers, 
direct or implied misrepresentations of the real condition 
of impenitent sinners. Never forget that they are free 
agents, and do always and obstinately resist the Holy 
Ghost, and that their anguish, perplexity , confusion of mind 
and other difficulties proceed from this cause." — p. 13. 

Indeed, the first time we ever heard this doctrine 
it was avowed by Dr. S. in the Fifth Presbyterian Church 
of Philadelphia, of which he was then the pastor. There 
were a number of " anxious persons" present. He af- 
firmed broadly, and without qualification, that every in- 
stance of deep distress on the part of awakened sinners 
was to be attributed to resistance to the Holy Ghost. 
We were startled by the declaration, but did not understand 
its source and bearing as well as we now do. 

In opposition to this strange notion, we affirm that deep 
mental distress on account of depravity and condemnation 
is one of the fruits of the Spirit — that it is required of 
every sinner — that it is a constituent of repentance — and 
that one reason why many fall short of saving experience 
is, that their convictions are not sufficiently deep and pain- 
ful. They are not deep enough to imbitter sin. And the 
reason why they do not arrive at the requisite intensity 
is resistance to the Spirit's influences on the part of* 
the awakened sinner. He refuses to obey the impulses 
of the Spirit. If he would surrender himself fully to the 
guidance of the Spirit, he would be led on to still more 
painful discoveries of his character and condition, and 
thus prepared for the full and cordial acceptance of the 



246 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

atonement, and an entire dedication of himself to the ser- 
vice of God. 

We do not maintain that deep convictions are necessary 
to the first act of submission to God. This is often the 
result, or development, of a merely intellectual conviction, 
so far as the state of mind is concerned. We suppose 
that a man in his right mind, and not deserted by the Holy 
Spirit, may, at any time, take the first step toward his con- 
version. If it were true that the first movement of the 
mind which conforms to the will of God constitutes rege- 
neration, we should be obliged to admit that convictions 
are not always necessary to regeneration. But this is not 
the case. It is but the commencement of a process ne- 
cessary to the attainment of that blessing ; and in that 
process these painful exercises, for which the New School 
theory finds no place, are invariably developed. 

Nor do we maintain that these exercises must be alike 
in all cases. Various causes may operate to modify them. 
In some they are intense and violent, almost driving the 
individual to distraction. In others they are much less 
severe, but yet sufficient for the end for which they are 
designed. They are the godly sorrow for sin, working 
repentance unto salvation, which needs not to be repented 
of. And the disagreement between the Scriptures and 
New Divinity, may be inferred from the discordant con- 
siderations with which they respectively regard these 
mental disquietudes. 

Neither is it denied that distress of mind may be great- 
ly augmented, prolonged, and modified, by a reluctance 
to acquiesce in some of the requisitions of duty, or the 
want of a vigorous effort : nor that in some instances the 
Spirit produces deep and harassing convictions in despite 
of the sinner's resolute resistance. But these facts nei- 
ther suggest nor sustain the inference, that all cases of 
deep distress on account of sin are to be attributed to 



NEW DIVINITY- 



' MEANS OF GRACE. 



247 



resistance to the Holy Spirit. The Almighty Spirit dis- 
plays his sovereignty by greatly diversified operations, all 
tending to the same ends ; but the production of godly 
sorrow for sin, as subservient to repentance and faith, is 
but the execution of an invariable law in the economy of 
grace. 

It is not to be expected that this doctrine will be carried 
out faithfully in all the preaching and writings of New 
Divinity. It is most likely to be brought to bear on cases 
of very deep and protracted distress. For whatever may 
be the ability of the sinner, or the causes and moral quality 
of this painful anxiety, they find it, in general, quite con- 
ducive to submission to their instructions. Hence they 
labour to produce it. But they desire to produce just 
enough to lead the sinner to resolve on becoming a Chris- 
tian, and joining the Church. It is the unwillingness of 
the sinner to take these steps, and that alone, which makes 
any degree of uneasiness necessary. In some instances, 
it would seem, the sinner approves of his duty, makes no 
resistance to the Spirit, but at once exerts his natural 
ability, resolves on becoming a Christian, and becomes 
one without any distress of mind whatever — and then we 
have one of the examples, so highly lauded, of a calm, in- 
telligent submission. But when the anxiety of mind be- 
comes so deep as to induce strong cries for mercy, and 
an unwillingness to be comforted, without an evidence of 
acceptance with God, it is deemed a serious disadvantage 
The case then becomes unmanageable, on their theory. 
They construe it into a case of obstinate rebellion. The 
sinner is able, at any moment, to submit, but is unwilling. 
He must be urged to immediate submissio?i. He must be 
told that all his distress is but the evidence of stout re- 
bellion. He is not willing to place himself in the hands 
of God to be disposed of as he pleases. He is selfish — 
he is waxing worse and w^orse. And if the individual. 



248 NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE. 

following the instructions of Methodism, should persevere 
in his cries for mercy, until he obtains the evidence of his 
acceptance with God, as is the case with thousands, they 
would either call in question the genuineness of his expe- 
rience, or explain it by saying, that he might have obtained 
the favour of God at any previous period, just as easily as 
when he did — that his distress and prayers, so far from 
conducing to his conversion, only postponed it — that he 
was all this time fighting against God, and that had he 
done at first what he did at last, he might have obtained 
religion without a single pang. 

Much of the writing and preaching of modem Calvinism 
is decidedly calculated to make the impression, that the 
moral condition of the awakened sinner in deep distress 
and crying for mercy, is worse than that of the careless 
sinner. Says Mr. Walton, in his " Narrative of a Revival 
in the Third Presbyterian Church of Baltimore," " In 
giving directions to awakened sinners, we are sometimes 
led into error by a species of false charity, thinking that 
as they are now under so much religious concern, their 
hearts are not so wicked as the Bible represents the hearts 
of all unconverted persons to be." Again : " The light of 
conviction, then, which brings them [the holiness, justice, 
and sovereignty of God] into view, so far from lessening 
his enmity, increases it, and it continues to increase to the 
last moment before the sinner is subdued. It is true, 
therefore, to say that the convicted, as well as the careless 
sinner, is waxing worse and worse, and that his sins are in- 
creasing in a tremendous ratio" — pp. 24, 25. 

From these views it clearly follows, that the convicted 
sinner is entitled to no sympathy on account of his great dis- 
tress of mind, and that any manifestation of sympathy toward 
him, more than is displayed toward the most careless sinner ; 
must be of dangerous tendency, being calculated to make the 
impression on his mind that his distress is not wholly the re- 



NEW DIVINITY MEANS OF GRACE, 249 

suit of rebelliofi, and that his present state of mind is more 
hopeful and interesting than that by which it was preceded. 

We would probably never have thought of drawing this 
very obvious inference, had we not found it gravely as- 
serted as a doctrine. " A note of commiseration, 5 ' says 
Mr. Duffield, " a tacit acknowledgment of any other ina- 
bility than a wilful refusal to come to Christ, and a direct- 
ing to means which can be used, as though faith and re- 
pentance were not, and might not be instantly exercised, 
will blunt the edge of the keenest convictions. The sin- 
ner and his counsellor may both weep together, and sing 
a song of lamentation over the imbecility of his nature, 
and his wretched condition, but his sense of guilt will ne- 
cessarily be impaired by such a process." — p. 347. 

Mr. Finney is tremendously severe on those who mani- 
fest sympathy for the sinner in distress of mind. He as- 
sumes that the sympathy is false and misplaced, which is 
indeed the case if New Divinity be true, as the sinner 
can put a stop to his anxiety at any moment he pleases. 
The kind of sympathy which he feels for such, is thus 
expressed: " The sinner may whine and cry, * O how I am 
sorrowing and seeking Jesus !' It is no such thing. Jesus 
is seeking you." — Lectures, p. 328. 

I cannot express the horror I feel at this sentiment. It 
is utterly and eternally alien to the gospel of Christ. That 
system of tenderness and good will, requires us to weep 
with those that weep, and rejoice with those that rejoice. 

11* 



250 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

CALVINISM. 

At the outset of this discussion, it was stated that the 
New School divines have not abandoned the leading pecu- 
liarities of Calvinism ; but, on the contrary, hold to them 
as firmly as those of the Old School ; and that the differ- 
ences of opinion between these parties are to be sought 
in the theory by which the former attempt to reconcile 
the prominent doctrines of Calvinism, with the offer of 
salvation to all men, and the obligation of all men to repent 
and believe the gospel. Having exhibited fully the pe- 
culiarities of New Divinity, and proved their want of 
agreement with the oracles of God, we now propose to 
substantiate the declaration, that those w T ho advocate them, 
are, at the same time, decided Calvinists. 

The importance of this part of the argument arises out 
of a wide-spread misapprehension as to the doctrinal 
position occupied by this class of theologians, in relation 
to Calvinism and Methodism. There are thousands, who 
suppose, that they have entirely abandoned the former, 
and nearly, if not quite, come over to the latter. 

But the reader will not be astonished at the prevalence 
of this delusive supposition, when he takes into consider- 
ation the causes to which it may be referred. It is at- 
tributable, in part, to the fact, that they have been, and are 
still, in the habit of keeping Calvinism out of sight in their 
public ministrations. This practice, however, is not pecu- 
liar to the New School party. There are popular preachers 
who have distinguished themselves by their opposition to 
their New School brethren, and advocated their separation 
from the church, of whose preaching, very sensible hear- 
ers, in pretty constant attendance, affirm that it is rarely 
distinguishable, so far as doctrine is concerned, from that 



N E W DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



251 



of the Methodists. On this point we can adduce high 
authority. The late Dr. Porter, president of the Theological 
Seminary at Andover, and an eminent minister of the Cal- 
vinistic faith, in a letter to Dr. Beecher, which may be 
found in a work, entitled, " Harvey on Moral Agency," 
complains thus : — 

" There is a large number of orthodox ministers in New- 
England who, from family alliances, from constitutional 
delicacy of temper, &c, &c, as I hinted above, will tem- 
porize and make smooth work, from an honest conviction 
that a full disclosure of the truth would alienate their 
hearers. The bitter revilings of base men have been gradu- 
ally and insensibly leading Calvinistic ministers to hide 
their colours and recede from their ground. Dr. Spring's 
Church at Xewburyport, Park-street, especially in Dr. 
Griffin's day, and a few others, have stood like the Mace- 
donian phalanx. But others have gone backward. Cau- 
tion, cautiox, has been the watchword of ministers. 
When they do preach the old standard doctrines, it is in 
so guarded a phraseology that they are not understood to 
be the same. You know as well as I ; but, if I am not 
mistaken, thirty years ago ten sermons were preached in 
New-England on total depravity and election, to one that 
is preached on these subjects now." — p. 174. 

This language needs no comment. It fully confirms 
the conviction previously derived from what we have 
" heard and seen." And we read, with no little surprise, 
in the Life of the Rev. Robert Hall, the late eminent 
Baptist minister in England, a passage imputing to that 
great man the course which Dr. Porter condemns. The 
biographer says, " His system of theological tenets (creed 
is an ill-favoured term) was strictly orthodox, on the model 
of what has come to be denominated moderate Calvinism. 
"With the other conspicuous points — the doctrine of the 
Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and justinca- 



252 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



tion by faith alone, he held the more distinctively Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of predestination, though I cannot answer 
for the precise terms in which he would have stated it ; 
but I presume he would have accepted those employed in 
the articles of the Church of England. In preaching he 
very rarely made any reference to that doctrine, and his 
recognition of it by implication was too indistinct for toler- 
ation from the rigidly Calvinistic hearers of any preacher - 
not privileged by talents and public favour to bear down all 
censorial pretensions." — HalVs Works, vol. iii, p. 110. 

We could almost have wished, in behalf of the memory 
of a great man, and of the credit of the Christian ministry, 
that this statement had been withheld. He held the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of predestination to be a part of the gospel 
revealed by Jesus Christ, and committed to his ministers. 
It was a leading tenet in his denominational standard of 
faith ; and yet in preaching he very rarely referred to it, 
and when his language implied it, the implication was so 
indistinct, that had it not been for his great talents and 
popularity, his more consistent brethren would have made 
his course the subject of censure. 

We are further informed, on the next page, that, — " He 
was therefore exempt from all those restrictions, in respect 
to the mode of presenting and urging the overtures of re- 
demption, which have been imposed on some good men of 
the Calvinistic faith by a concern for systematic consist- 
ency. He took the utmost liberty in his strain of inculca- 
tion ; exhorting, inviting, entreating, expostulating, re- 
monstrating, in language of nearly the same tenor as that 
which might be employed by an Arminian preacher ; with 
the exception, of course, of that notion of free-will, which 
recurs with such laborious iteration in the preaching of 
that order, and which was excluded from his faith equally 
by theological and philosophical reasons." 

It is not intimated here that he took pains to contradict 



NEW D I V IN I T Y C A L Y I X I S 31 . 



253 



6< that notion of free-will." He probably was as silent 
respecting it, as he was respecting the doctrine of pre- 
destination. And, by his earnestness in urging the invita- 
tions and entreaties of the gospel, he doubtless made on 
the mind of his audiences the impression, that he fully 
believed in the Arminian doctrine of free-will, which those 
invitations and exhortations so obviously imply. 

The biographer goes on to say, — " This nonadvertence 
in his sermons to the Calvinistic tenet, was not from any 
secret consciousness that the belief of it is essentially 
incongruous w T ith his free strain of inculcation ; it was not 
that he might enjoy a license for inconsistency, through 
the device of keeping one of two incompatible things out 
of sight; but he judged that neither the doctrine itself, nor 
the process of reasoning to prove the belief of it, consistent 
with the most unrestricted language of exhortation, could 
be made a profitable part of popular instruction. He deem- 
ed it authority enough for his practice, independently of 
all abstracted reasoning on the subject, that he had the 
example of the divinely-inspired preachers urging the de- 
mands of the gospel on the unbelievers and the wicked, in 
the most unmeasured terms of exhortation, the predes- 
tinating decrees of Heaven set out of the question ; and 
that in modern experience it is a notorious fact, those 
preachers of the Calvinistic school (for one memorable 
example, Whitefield) who have nevertheless availed them- 
selves of this freedom to the utmost extent, have been 
incomparably more successful in effecting the great object 
of preaching, than those who have, somewhat presump- 
tuously, charged themselves with so much responsibility 
respecting the unknown determination of the Almighty, 
that they must not call men to faith and repentance lest 
they should contravene his sovereign purposes." 

Mr. Hall's reason for his " nonadvertence, in his ser- 
mons, to the Calvinistic tenet," is assigned : — " He judged 



254 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

that neither the doctrine itself, nor the process of reason- 
ing" by which the doctrine is supposed to be reconciled 
with the language of unrestricted exhortation, " could be 
made a profitable part of popular instruction. " The au- 
thority which he claimed for his practice in this particular 
is also referred to. He had the example of the " inspired 
preachers urging the demands of the gospel" on the wicked 
without any reference to the " predestinating decrees of 
Heaven," and also that of the most successful Calvinistic 
ministers — Whitefield, for instance. 

We cannot let this opportunity pass of vindicating the 
Gospel of the Son of God, and its inspired publishers, from 
the imputation here cast on them. Shall it be said by 
Christian ministers, that doctrines which Christ has re- 
vealed, especially the doctrine which declares his fixed 
purposes respecting those to whom the minister is sent, 
are unprofitable topics for public instruction ? And shall 
they be laid aside on such a pretext ? Has the Author of 
inspiration made this distinction respecting the doctrines 
which he has committed to the ministry of reconciliation 1 
Or has he revealed, under the impression that it would be 
profitable for instruction in righteousness, a doctrine which 
will not stand the test of experiment, and which his min- 
isters are, therefore, under the necessity of keeping out of 
sight ? And if it be left to the judgment of fallible men 
to determine whether it be profitable or not to preach a 
particular doctrine, we should like to know what security 
there is, that many other doctrines will not be involved 
in the same condemnation ? We declare our opinion, 
that a more dangerous and presumptuous principle, it 
would be difficult to advance ! 

And with respect to the alleged example of the apostles, 
we deny that they preached repentance without reference 
to " the predestinating decrees of Heaven." They inces- 
santly appealed to those decrees respecting the righteous 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



255 



and the wicked, and the manner in which the sinner 
could be received into the favour of God, as the great 
motives to repentance and obedience. It is true it would 
have been silly enough for them to urge the Calvinistic 
doctrine of predestination and decrees, as a motive to re- 
pentance, because it contains no such motive. If God 
has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, it occurs to us 
that, before any man is authorized to repent of any of his 
actions, he ought to be assured that God has repented 
of his having decreed them, or he might be convicted of 
repenting that he had done the will of God. This doc- 
trine the apostles have so completely "set out of the 
question," that it is not to be found in any of their writings ; 
nor do we wonder that those Calvinistic ministers have 
been the most successful, who have said the least about it. 

Mr. Hall very justly claims the authority of Whitefield's 
example in this matter. For, while in his writings, he 
frequently appeals to his success< as proof of the truth of 
his Calvinistic tenets, he says, in a letter to Mr. Wesley, 
" For Christ's sake, if possible, dear sir, never speak 
against election in your sermons. No one can say that I 
ever mentioned it in my public discourses, whatever my pri- 
vate sentiments may be? Memoirs of Whitelield, p. 57. 
Mr. Wesley's open and undisguised opposition to Calvin- 
ism, brought out Mr. Whitefield in defence of it; and it 
is easily gathered from all the biographers of the latter, 
that just in proportion as he advocated Calvinism, he 
restricted both his popularity and usefulness. Now, we 
have no hesitancy in asserting, that in Europe and Ameri- 
ca, there are thousands of Calvinistic ministers, whose 
practice, in this respect, is guided by the principle to 
which Mr. Hall conformed his preaching. 

Dr. Skinner, in a sermon preached at the opening of 
the Mercer-street Presbyterian church, in New-York, en- 
titled, " Thy Kingdom Come," strongly recommends the 



256 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

practice of laying aside doctrinal peculiarities in public 
instruction. He distinguishes between sectarian and sub- 
stantial Christianity, and maintains, that Christians, in 
their efforts to evangelize the world, " should seek to 
propagate substantial Christianity, rather than any secta- 
rian form of it." He explains his meaning by saying, 
" Among the various sects of true Christians, there are of 
course peculiarities which distinguish and unhappily di- 
vide them from one another ; and there is also a common 
faith, which distinguishes them from all the world, but 
which indissolubly unites them to one another, and to the 
great family of God in heaven and on earth. Their com- 
mon faith is substantial, and their party peculiarities are 
sectarian Christianity. My position is, that in their efforts 
to spread the gospel among mankind, Christians should 
seek to propagate, not the latter, but the former — their 
common faith, not their sectarian peculiarities — what 
they agree, not what they differ in — what unites, not 
what divides them. To be, if possible, yet more explicit, 
I mean to say, and shall attempt to prove, that their ob- 
ject should be to propagate, not both what they agree and 
what they differ in ; but what they agree in, exclusively of 
what they differ in" He then adds, in a note, " It were 
well, I think, if even ordinary discourses from the pulpit 
were restricted to these undisputed points. These points 
are sufficiently numerous and comprehensive to engross 
all the time and strength of preachers ; and it is doubtful 
if there is a promiscuous congregation on earth that are not 
liable to be more injured than profited by polemical sermons." 

He here insists on the unprofitableness of preaching 
sectarian peculiarities, as a reason for keeping them 
back. True, he says "polemical sermons," and thus 
changes the issue ; but the reader need not be misled, as 
he is professedly assigning a reason why public teaching 
should be " restricted" to " undisputed points." 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 257 

A more absurd and impracticable maxim could hardly 
be conceived. Were the author of the sermon to act upon 
it, he would not attempt to explain the nature of human de- 
pravity ; for then, he would be introducing a point disputed 
between the two parties of his own church, and between 
his own party and the Methodists. He would not, for the 
same reason, explain the nature of conversion, or regen- 
eration, or the extent of the atonement, or its application. 
Indeed, the sermon itself is a violation of this maxim, it 
being devoted to the settlement of questions now agitating 
the church of which he is a minister. But it answers 
one purpose admirably : it furnishes a very plausible apolo- 
gy for the concealment of those " sectarian peculiarities'' 
which it may be inconvenient to disclose. 

This same principle of ministerial prudence is con- 
tended for by Mr. Duffield. He says, " It is of moment 
that we learn to discriminate between the facts of Scrip- 
ture and the doctrines of a system of theology." And 
again, " The Arminian and the Calvinist agree in many 
essential facts of Christianity ; but how widely do they 
differ in their systems, and that difference originates in 
their philosophy. If ministers will preach their systems, 
they must of necessity preach much that is their own, and 
not the word of God." — p. 563. 

It is fairly inferrible from this language that Mr. D. 
not only feels authorized to decline preaching his " sys- 
tem of theology," but also obliged to decline preaching it, 
inasmuch as he can preach the u essential facts of Chris- 
tianity" without preaching his system, and he cannot 
preach his system without preaching much that is his 
u own, and not the word of God." 

Whatever the " Arminian and the Calvinist" may 
agree in, there seems to be this difference between 
them, — the Calvinist can distinguish the peculiarities of 
his theological system from the great " facts of Christiani- 



258 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



ty," and style his doctrines " sectarian peculiarities," and 
exclude them from his ministrations, as a matter of duty, 
on the ground that it is " unprofitable" to make them a 
" part of popular instruction ;" whereas, the Arminian, 
professes to believe, that the Scriptures teach doctrines 
as well as facts, and to derive all the doctrines of his 
theological system from the word of God. He identifies 
them with the gospel itself, so far as he understands it ; 
and he no more dare pronounce any of them unprofit- 
able, as topics of pulpit instruction, or to withhold them, 
than he dare pronounce unprofitable or conceal, the un- 
doubted messages of the Most High. 

It would be, at least, a curious inquiry, how Mr. D. 
would run the line of discrimination, between facts and 
doctrines. So far as we can see, to preach nothing but 
what may be called, by way of distinction, the facts of 
Scripture, would be to confine our pulpit instructions to 
such statements as these : — There was a man called Jesus 
Christ. He was crucified by his enemies. After three 
days he rose from the dead, &c. To attempt a statement 
of the connection between the death of Christ and the sal- 
vation of sinners ; or to take up the question whether his 
death was designed to render salvation attainable by all, 
or merely a part of mankind, would be to plunge at once 
into the Socinian, Calvinistic, or Arminian system of the- 
ology. But he is not in trouble on this point, as are other 
men. He can resolve doctrines into facts, and facts into 
doctrines, just as they meet his approbation or disap- 
probation. 

The adoption and observance of this strange code of 
ministerial ethics, is, of itself, sufficient to account for the 
general impression, that Calvinism has been given up by 
the Calvinistic churches. 

But there are other causes. According to Dr. Por- 
ter, when they profess to state the doctrines of Calvinism, 



NEW D IVIXITY CALVIN I S M. 



259 



" they state them in so guarded a phraseology that they 
are not understood to be the same." How often is the 
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination represented to be 
this, — that God is a sovereign — that he has purposes — 
that he has a plan — just as though Arminians denied these 
propositions. The natural inference from such state- 
ments, formal or implied, is that the doctrine has been 
caricatured when stated that " God from all eternity did, 
by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely 
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" 

The practice of issuing " short creeds" has also con- 
tributed to this state of things. These creeds generally 
contain a number of points of doctrine in which Calvin- 
ists and Arminians agree, with one or perhaps two articles 
in which Calvinism is so cautiously introduced, as to es- 
cape the observation of nearly all to whom the creed is 
presented ; and yet there is enough to preserve its ortho- 
doxy, and to lead to the entire system of Calvinism. 

Again : They frequently complain that they are misre- 
presented when their doctrines are imputed to them, and 
thus the impression is made that they do not hold these 
doctrines. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, says, " The truth 
is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker who has 
fairly distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who 
has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared 
to understand it." 

Dr. Beecher, in his Lectures on Skepticism, says, 
" I have never seen or heard a correct statement of the 
Calvinistic system from an opponent." Now, when it is 
taken into the account, that Arminians usually represent 
their doctrines in the very language of their own stand 
ards, what is the natural inference, but that they do not 
believe the doctrines of Calvinism 1 

He gives an example of the misrepresentation of which 
he complains. " Consult," says he, " almost any oracle 



260 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



of opposition as to what is Calvinism, and the response 
will be, Calvinism is that horrible system which teaches 
that God has foreordained and fixed, by irresistible omnip- 
otence, whatsoever comes to pass; that he has made a 
very small number on purpose to be saved, and all the 
rest on purpose to damn them ; that an atonement by 
weight and measure has been made for the elect only, 
but which is offered to the non-elect on conditions impos- 
sible to be complied with, and they are damned for not 
accepting what did not belong to them, and could not have 
saved them if they had received it ; and that infants as well 
as adults are included in the decree of reprobation, and 
that hell is no doubt paved with their bones." 

He adds, " It is needless to say that falsehoods more 
absolute and entire were never stereotyped in the foundry 
of the father of lies, or with greater industry worked 
off for gratuitous distribution from age to age." 

Now, this language is calculated to make the impres 
sion, that none of the doctrines included in the foregoing 
example, belongs to the system of Calvinism ; and yet 
most, if not all, of the leading doctrines of Calvinism are 
included in it. Let any one take the Saybrook Platform, 
or the Presbyterian, or the Baptist Confession of Faith, and 
compare these alleged falsehoods with what they say on 
the subjects of predestination, election, atonement, ability, 
and the future condition of elect infants, and he will be 
able to estimate properly the disavowal of Dr. B., and 
likewise the censure with which he assails his opponents. 

Besides, he does not profess to have quoted these re- 
presentations from any Arminian author. The truth is 
this, — he has thrown in some phraseology which he can 
contradict with plausibility, and which Arminians never 
impute to them, such as, " that hell is no doubt paved 
with their bones" — the bones of infants — and then applies 
his contradiction to the whole. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



261 



Again : It is frequently denied by the members of Cal- 
vinistic churches, that those churches are Calvinistic ; 
whether ignorantly or intentionally, it is not for us to de- 
termine. Sometimes the ministers of those churches de- 
ny that they are Calvinists. We have often heard of 
such cases, and are able to adduce one instance as 
proof. Robert Hall, in a correspondence with the Broad- 
mead church, respecting his sentiments, says, " In the 
second place, I am not a Calvinist, in the strict and pro- 
per sense of that term." — 3d vol. p. 19. Again: "On 
being asked," says his biographer, " whether he was an 
Arminian or a Calvinist, he said, 6 Neither, but I believe I re- 
cede further from Arminianism than Calvinism.' " — p. 35. 

It is due to Mr. Hall to believe that he did not intend to 
deny that he held any of the doctrines of Calvinism. He 
meant, no doubt, that on some points he differed from 
more rigid Calvinists. Probably, the majority of those 
Calvinists who deny that they are such, are entitled to 
the benefit of the same explanation. The question be- 
fore us, is not the morality of such declarations, but the 
probable effect of them, on the mind of the public. 

But the principal cause of the misconception to which 
we are adverting, is found in their preaching a " free sal- 
vation." There are probably more sermons preached ex- 
pressly on this subject, and professedly in support of the 
doctrine at the present day, in Calvinistic than in Arminian 
churches. And the public have not yet come to under- 
stand that the free salvation of the Methodists and that of 
Calvinists are widely different — that the free salvation of 
the latter, is one which they can reconcile with the fore- 
ordination of all actions and events, and the election of a 
definite number to eternal life, and reprobation of the rest. 
In some instances, however, they go so far in their state- 
ments of the freeness of salvation, as to directly contradict 
their creed. 



262 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

Add to these the consideration that the Old School 
Calvinists publicly charge those of the New School with 
abandoning Calvinism, and becoming Arminians, and the 
fact which we have given as our reason for adducing 
proofs that they are Calvinists, is abundantly account- 
ed for. 

Some may be offended with this article, supposing that 
it charges the New School portion of the Calvinistic min- 
istry with a want of strict honesty in the publication of 
their sentiments. This is not our object. We have sta- 
ted facts, and cannot be answerable for inferences. We 
cannot deny, however, that the course which some of 
them have pursued, has often reminded us of the dissimu- 
lation of Peter on a certain occasion, for which Paul 
sharply rebuked him. Nor should any of them be too 
sensitive, when any thing is said which implies that they 
have committed a sin, since the most of them disclaim 
with emphasis, not only the Antinomian doctrine of per- 
fection, which dispenses with the obligation to keep the 
law, but likewise the doctrine of Scriptural perfection, 
which consists in strictly keeping the law. If they pur- 
posely and systematically teach that neither themselves, 
nor any other merely human being, ever lived without sin, 
need they be surprised or indignant if they are sometimes 
suspected of committing a sin to which circumstances so 
strongly tempt them? 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



263 



CHAPTER XXIY. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

We now enter upon the task of proving that the public 
teachers of New Divinity are Calvinists. 

In the first place, a great number of them are ministers 
of a Church — the Presbyterian Church — which requires 
them, in their ordination vow, to affirm their belief in, and 
pledge themselves to the support of, the doctrines of Cal- 
vinism. They were required in their ordination, to answer 
these questions, among others, in the affirmative, " Do you 
sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of 
this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught 
in the Holy Scriptures ?" " Do you promise to be zealous 
and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel, and 
the purity and peace of the Church, whatever persecution 
or opposition may arise unto you on that account ?" — West- 
minster Confession of Faith, p. 378. 

As this Confession of Faith may be conveniently acces- 
sible to but a very small portion of our readers, we will 
quote some of its decidedly Calvinistic passages. 

With respect to the divine decrees it says, " God, from 
all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of his 
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
comes to pass." 

Again : " Although God knows whatsoever may or can 
come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he 
not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as 
that which would come to pass upon such conditions. 

" By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his 
glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto ever- 
lasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 

" These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore- 



264 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and 
their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be 
either increased or diminished." 

The reason by which the choice of Jehovah was in- 
fluenced in predestinating some to life and others to death 
is thus stated : — 

" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, 
God, before the foundation of the world was laid, accord- 
ing to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret 
counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in 
Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace 
and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or 
perseverance in either of them, or any thing in the creature, 
as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto ; and all to 
the praise of his glorious grace." 

" The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to 
the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex- 
tendeth or withholdeih mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of 
his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to 
ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the 
praise of his glorious justice." 

With respect to the vouchsafement of the necessary 
means of salvation, this creed says, " As God hath ap- 
pointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal 
and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the 
means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being 
fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ ; are effectually 
called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due 
season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his 
power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other 
redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, 
sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." — Chap, iii, p. 15. 

This doctrine of election and rejection is thus applied 
to infants, " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regener- 
ated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 265 

when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all 
other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly 
called by the ministry of the word." 

Of the non-elect in general it is said, " Others not 
elected, although they may be called by the ministry of 
the word, and may have some common operations of the 
Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore 
cannot be saved : much less can men, not professing the 
Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, 
be thev never so diligent to frame their lives according to 
the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do 
profess ; and to assert and maintain that they may is very 
pernicious, and to be detested." — Chap, x, p. 33. 

On the " Perseverance of the Saints" the Confession 
runs thus, "They whom God hath accepted in his Be- 
loved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can 
neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace ; 
but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be 
finally saved. 

" This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon 
their free will, but upon the immutability of the decree 
of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love 
of God the Father ; upon the efficacy of the merit and in- 
tercession of Jesus Christ ; the abiding of the Spirit and 
of the seed of God within them ; and the nature of the 
covenant of grace ; from all which ariseth also the cer- 
tainty and infallibility thereof." — Chap, xvi, p. 76. 

Will it be said that in receiving and adopting this Con- 
fession of Faith, they did not purpose or profess to receive 
all its doctrines, but, merely, as containing the system of 
doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures ? This ground 
some of them have taken, and we readily admit that they 
differ from the Confession of Faith on some points ; for in- 
stance, on the doctrines of imputation, ability, atonement, 
the nature of depravity, regeneration, holiness, and the in 

12 



266 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



fluences of the Spirit ; but the doctrines which we have 
quoted from the Confession of Faith constitute its distinct- 
ive peculiarities ; and to suppose that in adopting this creed 
they so played upon the terms " containing" and " system" 
as to exclude and reject the very doctrines by which it is 
distinguished from the creeds of other sects which are 
directly opposed to it, would be to attribute to them a 
course which would disgrace even Jesuitism itself. By 
such a mode of adopting and supporting denominational 
standards, I might become a Presbyterian or even a Ro- 
man Catholic clergyman to-morrow, provided there were 
nothing in the way of my reception but my opinions. All 
that would be necessary is, that the creed presented for 
my adoption should contain a sufficient number of doctrinal 
announcements for me to extract a system from them. I 
need not receive it as not containing very dangerous errors 
or as expressing my opinions very clearly. I might look 
upon its language as quite antiquated and obsolete. It 
would be enough that it barely contained my system, which 
I might make general or particular — to include but few or 
a greater number of propositions, according to the quantity 
of materials on hand. It is, therefore, the judgment of 
charity to suppose that those who have solemnly sub- 
scribed to this creed are decided Calvinists, whatever 
varieties of opinion they may hold on the minor branches 
of the system. 

Secondly. When charged by the judicatories of their 
Church with disbelieving these doctrines — with having 
abandoned the Confession of Faith, so far as Calvinism is 
concerned, and gone over to Arminianism, they defend 
themselves, not by admitting the truth of the charge, and 
vindicating their course on the ground that these doctrines 
of Calvinism are not Scriptural, but by denying the charge, 
and asserting their orthodoxy. An editorial article in the 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 267 

Philadelphia Observer, Sept. 28, 1837, a leading New 
School paper, contains the following : — 

u It is now clearly understood that the diversities in 
doctrinal opinions, of which so much has of late been said, 
do not exist, or if they exist at all, relate only to those 
minor shades of difference in the mode of explaining and 
illustrating truth which have always existed in the Church, 
and which have never been regarded as an occasion of 
division or alienation." 

Dr. Beecher, who was arraigned in Cincinnati as a 
New School man, on the charge of heresy, in the work 
written expressly for the purpose of vindicating himself 
before the public, says, — 

u The comprehensive charge against me is, that I hold 
and teach Pelagian and Arminian doctrines, in respect to 
the subject of free agency and accountability, original sin, 
total depravity, regeneration, and Christian character, con- 
trary to the Confession and the word of God " With 
reference to this charge he says, " If my doctrinal belief 
is adverse to the Confession of Faith, as immemorially 
explained, I am not only not reluctant to go out of the 
Presbyterian Church, but I am determined not to stay in 
it."— p. 14. 

Mr. Barnes, who was suspended by the synod of Phila- 
delphia, on the charge of teaching doctrines contrary to 
the Confession of Faith, assumes the same ground of de- 
fence. He says, — 

" ' The Protest' charges the author of the sermon en- 
titled, ' The Way of Salvation' with having broached 
errors opposed to the doctrinal standards of the Presbyte- 
rian Church, and in their tendency exceedingly danger- 
ous." — Defence, p. 51. "He is desirous that those who> 
may peruse this Protest may know that the author of the 
sermon has not in his own view — except in a single ex- 
pression, in which he believes he coincides with almost 



i 



268 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the entire mass of ministers in the Presbyterian Church 
— deviated from her standards, &c." — p. 52. 

Again : " Before proceeding to the direct consideration 
of the charges alleged against me, I may be permitted to 
make a remark on my views of the standards of the Church 
to which we belong. I have already expressed my belief 
of the utility of creeds, or articles of faith. Of the Con- 
fession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly, I may be 
allowed to say, that when I expressed my assent to it as 
* a system of doctrines,' I did it cordially, and that I have 
never had occasion to regret the act. I then regarded it 
as I do now, and ever have done y as the best summary 
of the doctrines of the Bible which I have ever seen, and 
as expressing my views of the true scheme of Chris- 
tian theology in a manner far better than any other arti- 
cles of faith which I have ever examined. The system 
of truth contained there, as distinguished from all other 
systems — the Socinian, the Pelagian, the Arian, the Ar- 
minian, &c. — has appeared to me to be the true system ; 
and without hesitation, or fluctuation, I have received it." 
—p. 111. 

Nor does Mr. B. look upon the language of the Confes- 
sion of Faith as obscure, liable to be misinterpreted, and 
requiring a commentary to make it intelligible. " I have 
thought," he adds, "that there was, perhaps, somewhat 
too much of harshness and severity of language in the 
general cast of that Confession ; and that a few expres- 
sions do not convey, without much laboured exposition, 
the meaning of the sacred Scriptures. To a few of those 
expressions, small in number, and not affecting the system 
as a system, I have always taken the exceptions which 
others have been allowed to do." — Ibid. 

And on page 184 — " Our Confession of Faith was drawn 
up by men admirably skilled in the use of language. The 
terms which are employed are, usually at least, employed 



N E \V D IVIXITY CAL VINISM. 



269 



with great precision, and with admirable guards against 
misconstruction. The men who framed it were profoundly 
acquainted with the English tongue, and expressed their 
ideas with great accuracy." 

The same sentiment is avowed by Dr. Beecher : — 

" The Confession itself, and Catechisms, are made up 
of the most judicious, concise, and accurate descriptions 
of doctrine, experience, and practice, ever placed on 
record. Such as no single mind would have formed, or 
many minds without that marked providential supervision, 
which in the same age that he gave us the Bible in a 
translation not to be rivalled, gave an epitome of its con- 
tents, in symbols, which will carry down to the millennium 
the comprehensive suffrage of the faithful in Christ Jesus." 
— Views in Theology, p. 233. 

Mr. Barnes appealed from the decision of the synod to 
the next general assembly, which held its session in Pitts- 
burg in the year 1836. The assembly, having a majority 
of New School men, sustained the appeal, and restored 
Mr. B. to his former standing, on the ground that he had 
not departed from the Confession of Faith. Drs. Philips 
and Hoge, of the opposite party, protested against this 
decision of the assembly. The protest was referred to a 
committee. In the answer, which was read by Dr. Skin- 
ner, there is the following passage : — 

" So far is the assembly from countenancing the errors 
alleged in the charges of Dr. Junkin, that they do cor- 
dially and ex-anirno adopt the Confession of Faith of our 
Church, on the points of doctrine in question, according 
to the obvious and most prevalent interpretation ; and do 
regard it, as a whole, as the best epitome of the doctrines 
of the Bible ever formed. And the assembly disavows 
any desire, and would deprecate any attempt, to change 
the phraseology of our standards, and would disapprove 
of any language of light estimation applied to them ; be- 



270 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 



lieving that no denomination can prosper whose members 
permit themselves to speak slightingly of its formularies 
of doctrine ; and are ready to unite with their brethren in 
contending earnestly for the faith of our standards."— 
Presbyterian, June 25, 1836. 

Numerous passages might be cited from the "Opinions" 
of individual members of the assembly, " delivered in the 
case of Mr. B.," but it is unnecessary, as the report con- 
taining the extract above was adopted by the assembly., 
and is therefore the official declaration of the party. 

Nor can it be said that they have changed their doc- 
trines since the division of the Church. The New, or 
" Constitutional Assembly," as they style themselves, 
adopted the following resolution unanimously, at their ses- 
sion of 1838 : — 

" That it be, and hereby is recommended to all the 
presbyteries to take special pains to have the book con- 
taining the Confession of Faith and form of government 
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Ame- 
rica more generally circulated among the churches under 
their care." 

And in their " Pastoral Letter" they say, "We love and 
honour the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 
as containing more well-defined, fundamental truth, with 
less defect, than appertains to any other human formula 
of doctrine, and as calculated to hold in intelligent con- 
cord a greater number of sanctified minds than any which 
could now be formed ; and we disclaim all design, past, 
present, and future, to change it." — Phil. Observer, Oct. 
11, 1838. 



NEW DIVINITY < 



■CALVINISM. 



271 



CHAPTER XXY. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

In continuation of the argument to prove that the New 
School party are Calvinists, we shall next adduce some of 
their avowals of the doctrines of that system. 

And as circumstances have assigned to Mr. Barnes 
great pre-eminence among the champions of that party, 
we shall examine his sentiments first. 

It is an interesting fact, and one which belongs to the 
history of this controversy, that Mr. B. wrote his sermon 
on " The Way of Salvation," which has involved him in 
so much difficulty with his orthodox brethren, purposely, 
in defence of Calvinism. A short time previous to its 
publication, a powerful revival of religion occurred, in the 
Methodist church, in Morristown, New-Jersey, where Mr. 
B. was settled. By some means, the doctrines of Calvin- 
ism were brought up for discussion before the community. 
Mr. B. preached a sermon on the " Sovereignty of God," 
in which he endeavoured to defend the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of predestination. This sermon was ably reviewed 
by the Rev. Nathaniel Porter, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. In continuation of this controversy, Mr. B. 
preached and published the sermon first named. This 
sermon was supposed by some of his brethren to contain 
principles fatal to Calvinism, and was made the ground of 
ecclesiastical prosecution. 

"We find a pretty free development of Mr. B.'s Calvinism 
in his introduction to " Butler's Analogy," in which he 
proposes " to give a specimen of the argument from ana- 
logy in support of the Christian religion." He introduces 
the subject of Calvinism in the following manner : "There 
is still a more important branch of the argument untouched 



272 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



— the analogy of the Christian scheme, as we understand 
it, to the course of nature, and the fact that all the objec- 
tions urged against Calvinism lie against the actual order 
of events." — p. 31. 

After adverting to some other topics, he takes up the 
subject of predestination. He does not venture at once 
upon a clear statement of his views on this subject. He 
commences by saying, " Religion affirms that God exerts 
the power which he puts forth in pursuance of a plan or 
purpose definitely fixed before the foundation of the world." 
The terms " plan" and " purpose" recur incessantly, as if 
they fully expressed the doctrine under consideration. 
He talks about the opponents of Calvinism doubting and 
denying that God has a plan, or purpose, or decree. But 
his meaning is easily gathered from the tenor of his argu- 
ment, and from occasional expressions. For instance, it is 
the doctrine to which Arminians are opposed, that he un- 
dertakes to defend. He goes on to say, " And we know of 
no single doctrine that has been more universally conceded 
by infidels to be in the Scriptures ; none in the Bible that 
has been so often brought forward among their alleged 
reasons for rejecting it as a revelation ; none that has so 
frequently crossed the path of wicked men, and revealed 
the secret of the rebellion of their hearts ; none that has 
called forth so much misplaced ingenuity from Socinians 
and Arminians" &c. Without taking up the question 
whether infidels make the doctrine that God has purposes, 
or a plan, simply, the ground of their objections to revela- 
tion, we proceed to state, that Arminians are not opposed 
to the doctrine that God has a plan, or to the doctrine of 
predestination simply, but to that which is so clearly stated 
in the Confession of Faith of Mr. B.'s Church — that God 
has ordained whatsoever comes to pass. To deny that God 
has a plan, would seem to be equal to a denial that God 
has any fixed and ascertained principles of moral govern- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



273 



ment. But what Arminian denies this ? Can it be pos- 
sible that Mr. B. is so ignorant of the system he opposes, 
as to imagine his representation of it correct ? To settle 
this question, we will refer to an Arminian writer : — Dr. 
Adam Clarke says, on Eph. i, 5, " Here the word [pre- 
destinated] is used to point out God's fixed purpose or 
predestination to bestow on the gentiles the blessing of 
the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ ; which adoption had 
been before granted to the Jewish people : and without 
circumcision, or any other Mosaic rite, to admit the gen- 
tiles to all the privileges of his Church and people. And 
the apostle marks, that all this was fore-determined by God, 
as he had fore-determined the bounds and precincts of the 
land which he gave to them according to the promise 
made to their fathers. That the Jews had no reason to 
complain, for God Yi&di formed this purpose before he had 
given the law, or called them out of Egypt ; for it was 
before the foundation of the world, (ver. 2,) and that, there- 
fore, the conduct of God in calling the gentiles now, bring- 
ing them into his Church, and conferring on them the gifts 
and graces of the Holy Spirit, was in pursuance of his 
original design ; and if he did not do so, his eternal pur- 
poses could not be fulfilled." The reader will perceive, 
that there is no hesitancy on the part of Arminians in at- 
tributing to God predeterminations, original designs, and 
eternal purposes. But because God has predestinated some 
events, they do not feel at liberty to infer that he has pre- 
destinated every event, especially as the Scriptures deny 
that such is the case. We infer, then, that if Mr. B. 
knows what doctrine of predestination it is to which Ar- 
minians are opposed, he means more by the terms pur- 
pose, plan, &c, than their true import discloses. 

He exhibits his views more fully as he proceeds to 
show that his doctrine does not interfere with the free- 
dom of human actions. He adverts to the influence which 

12* 



274 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



the " plans or purposes" of men have on their fellow-men, 
and thus brings his argument to its conclusion : "In all 
these, and ten thousand other cases, there is a plan formed 
by other beings in respect to us, which finally enters as a 
controlling element of our destiny. If it be said that they 
all leave us free, so we say of the decrees of God, that 
we have a like consciousness of freedom. In neither 
case does the foreign influence cripple or destroy our free- 
dom ; in neither case does it make any difference whether 
the plan was formed an hour before the act, or has stood 
fixed for ages. All that could bear on our freedom would 
be the fact, that the purpose was previous to the deed — a 
circumstance which does not alter the act itself, whether 
the decree be formed by ourselves, by other men, or by 
God." — p. 50. We now begin to ascertain the nature of 
the plans and purposes formed by other beings, in respect 
to us. This passage connects the decree of God with 
human actions. It represents him as foreordaining human 
actions. It makes no difference, we are told, as to our 
freedom, whether the plan was formed an hour before the 
act, or has stood for ages ; or whether the act was decreed 
by ourselves, by others, or by God. We would suggest a 
thought which seems not to have occurred to Mr. B. when 
penning this analogy ; that it may depend on the nature of 
the influence which men exert on each other, whether the 
parties acting under the influence, or those exerting it, are 
responsible for the acts induced. 

Mr. B. expresses himself decisively on page 53. "But 
on this point the entire movement of the world bears the 
marks of being conducted according to a plan. We defy 
a man to lay his finger on a fact which has not such a 
relation to other facts as to show that it is a part of a 
scheme — and if of a scheme, then of a purpose formed be- 
forehand" This is plain enough. No man, we are as- 
sured, can specify a fact which is not a part of a scheme, 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



275 



and of course a part of a purpose formed beforehand. He 
is speaking of the connection of events with the purposes 
of God, and must of course be understood to lay down the 
doctrine that all actions and events are a part of God's 
scheme, and purposed beforehand. He adverts to seve- 
ral facts in illustration of this doctrine : " Alexander 
the Great, in the vigour of life, and in the full career of 
conquest, was cut off by the act of God. Julian the Apos- 
tate, in the same regions, found also an early death, and 
his gigantic plans were arrested by the hand of God with 
reference to other great purposes in the liberty or religion 
of man. Napoleon met the mighty arm of God in the 
snows of the north, and the monarch fell — and with him 
fell the last purpose of his life. In the midst of daring 
schemes man often falls. God wields the dart to strike in 
an unusual manner, and the victim dies. He falls in with 
the great plans of the Deity, meets snows, or lightnings, 
or burning heats, or piercing colds that come around by the 
direction of the Governor of the world, and the man sinks, 
and his plans give way to the higher purposes of the Al- 
mighty." — p. 53. 

This is indeed a very choice selection of facts ; but it 
would not be difficult for " a man to lay his finger" on a 
few others which, according to this doctrine, are equally 
a part of God's scheme and purpose — such, for instance, 
as the transgression of Adam, the murder of Abel by his 
brother, or any other murder. W e would also suggest, 
whether the apostacy of Julian was not as certainly a fact 
as his death ; and whether we are not required to believe 
that Napoleon fell in with the plans of the Deity in form- 
ing his " daring schemes" as much as when he met the 
snows or lightnings ; and whether, indeed, he could have 
any " plans" which were not purposed beforehand by the 
Almighty ? 

There is a passage not less decisive in his Notes on 



276 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

Rom. viii, 29 : " The event which was thus foreknown 

must have been, for some cause, certain and fixed, since 

an uncertain event could not be possibly foreknown. To 

talk of foreknowing a contingent event as certain which 
© © 

may or may not exist, is an absurdity." We are here in- 
structed that an event could not possibly be foreknown, 
unless it were fixed, and that to talk of foreknowing a con- 
tingent event, which is explained to be one which may or 
may not exist, is an absurdity. If, then, God foreknew 
all things, it is absurd to say of any past event, that it 
might not have existed, or of any future event, that it may 
or may not exist. Every event therefore is eternally fixed. 
He adds, " In what way such an event became certain is 
not determined by the use of the word. But it must have 
been somehow in connection with a divine appointment or 
arrangement, since no other way can be conceived to be 
certain." We have now fairly before us the doctrine 
which Mr. B. is desirous to establish, and to which Ar- 
minians are opposed — that no event is contingent — that 
all the actions of men are decreed — that all events are 
fixed by divine appointment. And if we connect with 
the above what he says on Rom. ix, 19, we shall have the 
additional sentiment, that God's purposes are never de- 
feated, but that every thing comes to pass as it is decreed. 
The passage referred to reads as follows : " This does 
not mean that no one had offered resistance or opposition 
to God, but that no one had done it successfully. God 
had accomplished his purposes in spite of their oppo- 
sition." 

We have one more passage, beyond which it is impos- 
sible for the most ultra predestinarian to go. It is found 
on page 43 of the Introductory Essay : — " We inter- 
pret the decrees of God, so far as we can do it, by facts ; 
and we say that the actual result, by whatever means 
brought about, is the expression of the design of God." 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 277 

Mr B. deserves, however, the credit of handling this 
" high mystery" with " special caution." 

Next comes the doctrine of the election of some to eter- 
nal life, and the rejection of others, without any thing in 
their moral character operating as a moving cause of their 
election or rejection. Mr. B. enlarges on the inequality with 
which the blessings of Providence, and the gifts of nature, 
are dispensed, and argues from it as follows : " Now we 
might as well object to this fixed economy of things as to that 
which affirms that God dispenses the blessings of redemp- 
tion according to his good pleasure. If God may confer 
one blessing on one individual which he withholds from 
another, we ask why he may not be a sovereign also in 
the dispensation of other favours ? We ask what principle 
of justice and goodness is violated if he imparts penitence 
and faith to one individual, that is not violated also if he 
gives him health while another pines in sickness \ We 
ask with emphasis, where is there more partiality in giv- 
ing the Christian's hope to Brainerd or Martyn than there 
is in giving great talents to Xewton, or great wealth to 
Croesus ?" 

There is no difficulty in understanding the drift of this 
reasoning. It is argued that God dispenses the gifts of 
nature and providence, and the spiritual blessings neces- 
sary to salvation, on the same principle ; that he gives 
penitence, and faith, and the Christian's hope, on the same 
principle on which he gives great talents or wealth ; that 
he may do in respect to religion as he does in respect to 
health. Xow if it be understood that he always confers 
the gifts of nature and providence because of the faith and 
obedience of those whom he distinguishes, the analosy 
will hold good. But this cannot be Mr. B.'s meaning. 
He evidently intends that, as God may confer great wealth, 
or talents, or health, without reference to the conduct of 
the parties favoured, he may so confer the blessings of 



278 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



salvation ; and that as no man is injured, if God fails to 
confer on him superior talents, so no man is injured if 
God, on the same principle, withholds what is necessary 
to salvation. 

This doctrine is more pointedly set forth in his notes 
on Rom. ix, 11 : "For the children being not yet born, 
having done neither good nor evil," &c, he says, " This 
is a very important passage in regard to the question about 
the purposes of God. (1.) They had done nothing good 
or bad, &c. Again, (3.) The purpose of God is antece- 
dent to the formation of character, or the performance of 
any actions, good or bad. (4.) It is not a purpose formed, 
because he sees any thing in the individuals as a ground 
for his choice, but for some reason which he has not ex- 
plained, and which in the Scripture is simply called pur- 
pose and good pleasure, Eph. i, 5. (5.) If it existed in this 
case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is right 
now. And if God then dispensed his favours on this 
principle, he will now." And on the next verse, " It was 
said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger," he re- 
marks, " There was a reference here to the whole train 
of temporal and spiritual blessings which were to be con- 
nected with the two races of people. If it be asked how 
this bears on the argument of the apostle, we may reply, 
(1.) That it settles the principle that God might make a 
distinction among men, in the same nation, and the same 
family, without regard to their works or character. (2.) 
That he might confer his blessings on such as he pleased. 
(3.) If this is done in regard to nations, it may be in re- 
gard to individuals. The principle is the same, and the 
justice the same. If it be supposed to be unjust in God 
to make such a distinction in regard to individuals, it is 
surely no less so to make a distinction in regard to na- 
tions. The fact that numbers are thus favoured does not 
make it the more proper, or remove any difficulty. (4.) If 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



279 



this distinction may be made in regard to temporal things, 
why not in regard to spiritual things ? The principle must 
still be the same. If unjust in one case, it would be in 
the other. The fact that it is done in one case proves 
also that it will be in the other, for the same great princi- 
ple will run through all the dealings of the divine govern- 
ment. And as men do not, and cannot complain that God 
makes a distinction among them in regard to talents, 
health, beauty, prosperity, and rank, neither can they com- 
plain if he acts also as a sovereign in the distribution of 
his spiritual favours. They therefore who regard this as 
referring only to temporal and national privileges gain no 
relief in respect to the real difficulty in the case, for the 
unanswerable question would still be asked, Why has not 
God made all men equal in every thing ? Why has he 
made any distinction among men ? The only reply to such 
inquiries is, 1 Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in 
thy sight.' " 

Here it is contended that the election, by which one of 
the children was distinguished from the other, before they 
were born, was not only national, but individual ; that the 
privileges to which one was elected, and from which the 
other was excluded, were not only temporal but spiritual ; 
that if such a distinction has been made in one case, it 
has in others ; that if God can, without injustice, with- 
hold from some the temporal favours he confers on others, 
such as health, beauty, talents, prosperity, and rank, he 
can, on the same principle, without injustice, withhold 
the spiritual blessings necessary to salvation ; that the 
principle is the same ; and that if any one asks the reason 
why God saves some, and not others, it is not to be stated, 
as a cause, that one was penitent and believing, and the 
other impenitent ; " the only reply" that can be given is, 
that it was good in the sight of God. 

Again, on " I will have mercy on whom I will have 



280 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



mercy," &c, he says, " On whom I choose to bestow 
mercy. The mode he does not explain. But there could 
not be a more positive declaration of these truths, (1.) That 
he does it as a sovereign, without giving an account of the 
reason of his choice to any. (2.) That he does it without 
regard to any claim on the part of man ; or that man is 
regarded as destitute of merit, and as having no right to 
his mercy. (3.) That he will do it to any extent which 
he pleases, and in whatever time and manner may best 
accord with his own good pleasure. (4.) That he has regard 
to a definite number ; and that on that number he intends to 
bestow eternal life ; and, (5.) That no one has a right to 
complain. It is proof of his benevolence that any are 
saved ; and where none have a claim, where all are justly 
condemned, he has a right to pardon whom he pleases." 

Again, on the next verse, he gives us to understand that 
the salvation of the sinner is not dependent on, or pro- 
moted by, his effort to that end, but results wholly from 
the partiality of God. He tells us " that he is pardoned, 
not on account of his effort ; not because he makes an ex- 
ertion ; but because God chooses to pardon him." Again : 
" Weep and strive he may, but in this there is no ground 
of claim on God for pardon ; and, after all, he is depend- 
ent on his mere sovereign mercy, a lost, ruined, and help- 
less sinner, to be saved or lost at his will." 

Whether it would be just or unjust in God, before his 
creatures are born, to elect some to eternal life, and leave 
others in circumstances which will infallibly secure their 
sinning and damnation ; whether God withholds temporal 
favours, and the blessings necessary to salvation, on the 
same principle ; and whether the justice is the same in 
both cases, or not, one thing is plain, that, according to 
this scheme, it is great folly to talk of a free salvation. 
What manifest inconsistency for a man to offer salvation 
to all, and require all to repent, believe, and hope, when 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 281 

he holds that God "imparts penitence and faith," and 
" gives the Christian's hope," to a definite number, elected 
to this distinction before they were born, and withholds 
these blessings from others ; and that this is the sole rea- 
son why some sinners are saved, and others are not ! But 
we have our doubts, whether the principle and justice of 
withholding temporal and spiritual favours are precisely 
the same. God may withhold temporal things, and there- 
by promote our spiritual advantage and final salvation ; 
but to withhold all spiritual blessings excludes all hope 
throughout eternity. We can easily approve of the pur- 
pose of electing one of those children to special temporal 
privileges, and of assigning the other a relation of inferiority 
in these respects, before they were born, and wholly irre- 
spective of their works ; but the doctrine that one unborn 
child is elected to eternal life, and another consigned to a 
destitution of all the blessings necessary to salvation, is 
to us a revolting dogma — a heresy most hateful, if not 
blasphemous. 

Mr. B. also holds the Calvinistic doctrine of infallible 
^perseverance. On chap, viii, 30, he says, " This proves, 
therefore, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. 
There is a connection infallible and ever existing between 
the predestination and the final salvation." And in a note 
to his sermon on " The Way of Salvation," referring to 
John x, 27, 28, he says, " This single passage settles all 
controversy about the doctrine of falling from grace. Ad- 
mitting that it had ever been the intention of Christ to 
teach the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, it 
could not have been done in more explicit language."— 
Defence, p. 37. 

We have Mr. B.'s views of the manner in which God 
treats the non-elect, in his comment on the case of Pha- 
raoh. On verse 17, he says, " This passage is designed 
to illustrate the doctrine, that God shows mercy accord- 



282 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



ing to his sovereign pleasure by a reference to one of the 
most extraordinary cases of hardness of heart which has 
ever occurred. The design is to show that God has a 
right to pass by those to whom he does not choose to 
show mercy ; and to place them in circumstances where 
they shall develop their true character, and where in fact 
they shall become more hardened, and be destroyed." 

And again, on verse 18, he says, " The word hardeneth 
means only to harden in the manner specified in the case 
of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert a positive influence, 
but to leave a sinner to his own course, and to place him 
in circumstances where the character will be more and 
more developed. — See note, John xii, 40. It implies, how- 
ever, an act of sovereignty on the part of God in thus leav- 
ing him to his chosen course, and in not putting forth that 
influence by which he could be saved from death. Why 
this is, the apostle does not state." Mr. B. does not look 
on Pharaoh as one who might have been saved, but from 
whom the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn, in consequence 
of resistance, and whose existence was continued beyond 
that period for the purposes mentioned. God, as an act of 
sovereignty, passed him by — left him to his own course — 
declined putting forth that influence by which he could be 
saved from death. And from the following language it is 
plain that this commentator considers the course pursued 
toward Pharaoh as an example of the course pursued to- 
ward the non-elect in general. 

" The case of Pharaoh was one instance or illustration 
of the general principle on which God would deal with 
men. His government is conducted on great and uni- 
form principles ; and the case of Pharaoh was a develop- 
ment of the great laws on which he governs the universe." 
— v. 23. 

Great efforts are made by many modern Calvinistic 
writers, to prove that the eternal election of some does 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 283 

not imply a positive decree of reprobation respecting the 
rest ; and that while one class is elected there may be no 
decree whatever as to the course and destiny of the other, 
but they may be merely passed by, not elected, &c. 
It seems to be felt that if God be supposed to decree their 
reprobation, as he decrees the salvation of the elect, his 
justice and goodness are placed in an inauspicious light. 
We have already shown, that, whether the attributes of 
Jehovah are vindicated or not by such arguments, the case 
of the non-elect is one of utter hopelessness from the be- 
ginning, and that to offer salvation to all is useless, if not 
madness. Either what is done for the elect is not neces- 
sary for their salvation, or the damnation of the non-elect 
is inevitable. But the language of Mr. B. does not accord 
with these plausible speculations. According to his repre- 
sentations, God not only declines putting forth the influ- 
ence by which they may be saved from death, but places 
them in circumstances calculated to develop their cha- 
racter as sinners. This latter sentiment he affirms again 
and again. Now compare this with his challenge, to any 
man, to produce a fact which is not a part of the divine 
purpose, with his argument to prove that whatever is fore- 
known is fixed by the appointment of God, and with his 
declaration that the actual result, by whatever means 
brought about, is the expression of the design of God, and 
those wire-drawn speculations are given to the winds. 

We would notify the reader that it is not our present 
object to refute Calvinism ; but merely to prove that it is 
held by the New School party. Its refutation is much the 
easier task. Put together, then, the ordination vow of 
Mr. B., which he has never regretted, his declarations of 
adherence to the Confession of Faith, and his assertion of 
its leading doctrines, and the conclusion is irresistible that 
he is a Calvinist, whatever else he may be. 



284 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

The part which Dr. Skinner performed in the General 
Assembly of 1836, is sufficient to identify him with the 
class of theologians under review. He is a leading man 
among them. He classed himself with them, in a very 
decided manner, in a speech delivered in the case of Mr. 
Barnes. He remarked, " It has been said that there was 
no trouble in Philadelphia before Mr. Barnes came there. 
I, sir, had trouble there on account of my doctrinal senti- 
ments. How could it be said that there was no trouble 
there until Mr. Barnes came, when I was spoken of as 
the first of that kidney in the city ? If you condemn Mr. 
Barnes, you condemn all of us." Again : " These are our 
peculiarities : they do not exclude us from the Presbyte- 
rian Church. Now the question is, whether this class 
shall any longer be tolerated in the Presbyterian Church. 
Mr. Barnes is not distinguished from the class : he is a 
fair sample of the class. We do not consider him as by 
any means an ultra among us." 

That Dr. Skinner is a Calvinist, is fully demonstrated 
by the terms of his ordination vow, and his declared ap- 
proval of the Westminster Confession of Faith, not only 
in respect to its doctrines, but also its phraseology. But we 
proposed to furnish our readers with distinct avowals 
of Calvinistic doctrine. In the speech just alluded to, Dr. 
S. professes to state the doctrines which the " New School 
hold and preach, in common, as they suppose, with their 
Old School brethren." We shall commence our quotations 
with the fourth article, as there is nothing in those which 
precede it, relevant to our present purpose. According to 
this statement, they believe, and of course Dr. S. believes — 
" 4. That the influence of the Spirit of God in effectual 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 285 

calling is supernatural and sovereign, and as to the mode 
of its exercise is incomprehensible. 

" 5. That those who in time are effectually called by 
the Spirit of God were chosen to salvation through Christ, 
and that this election is sovereign, not grounded on fore- 
seen holiness in the elect, but unto holiness, or that they 
might be holy. 

" 6. That the renewed persevere in holiness to the end, 
but not by virtue of any power or principle of holiness in 
themselves, but by the indwelling power of the Holy Spi- 
rit, working in them to will and to do, and thus securing 
their activity and perseverance. 

" 7. That the happiness of the elect is perfect and 
eternal ; and that the non-elect, for their sin, are punished 
in hell for ever." 

This is not a full and undisguised declaration of the 
Calvinistic creed. It may be considered as " containing" 
or implying the system, rather than explicitly stating it. 
There is nothing in the fourth article to which an Armi- 
nian can object, taking the words according to their usual 
meaning. The term " sovereign " contains the Calvin- 
ism of this article. In Calvinistic parlance it does not 
mean, merely, that God acts as a sovereign in the dispen- 
sation of his favours — a doctrine which no one is disposed 
to deny — but that he exercises his sovereignty by electing 
some to the enjoyment of those spiritual blessings connect- 
ed with salvation, and by withholding them from others ; 
and that, in making the selection, he is governed solely 
by his own pleasure, and not by any thing in the moral 
character of the parties chosen or rejected. The article 
on election, in which he affirms that it is " sovereign," 
explains what he means by that term, viz., that the elec- 
tion is not " grounded on foreseen holiness in the elect, 
but unto holiness, or that they might be holy." 

We gather, then, from this exhibition, the following 



286 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



amount of genuine Calvinism : — That God has elected 
some men to final salvation, exclusive of others ; that 
these persons are elected, not because they are penitent 
and believing, or differ in their moral character from 
the non-elect, but that they, being unholy like the non- 
elect, " might become holy ;" that God acts upon this prin- 
ciple in the dispensation of the necessary spiritual in- 
fluence, granting the effectual calling to none but the elect ; 
that the elect invariably persevere unto the end, and that 
their perseverance is not attributable, in whole or in part, 
to any power or principle of holiness in themselves, but 
to the Holy Spirit, vouchsafed to them on the principle of 
sovereignty, on which they were elected. 

The short creed, or form of admission into the Mercer- 
street Presbyterian Church, of which Dr. S. is the pastor, 
contains two, and but two Calvinistic articles. They are 
as follows : — " You believe that no man of himself em- 
braces this way of salvation unless induced and deter- 
mined so to do by the agency of the Holy Spirit ; and that 
this agency is exerted in a free and sovereign manner, 
according to the counsel of infinite wisdom and goodness. 

" You believe that the subjects of the Holy Spirit's re- 
newing influence are, in some degree, holy as God is 
holy ; and submit themselves absolutely to God's will as 
the law of their being ; and though but imperfectly sanc- 
tified while in this world, do, by God's grace, persevere 
in resisting sin and following holiness, until they pass into 
the heavenly state." 

These articles of belief are so cautiously worded that 
most persons not versed in inquiries of this description, 
or not very much on their guard, would fail to detect in 
them any thing like Calvinism. But when we take into 
view the theological meaning which Calvinists attach to 
the word " sovereign," the secret is laid open ; and the 
articles in question are clearly understood to mean, that 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



287 



God selects from among the unholy, as unholy, the subjects 
of the Holy Spirit's agency ; that this agency not only in- 
duces, but determines them to embrace the way of salva- 
tion, and that those thus selected invariably persevere, al- 
though but imperfectly sanctified in this world, until they 
pass into the heavenly state. 

But if we may infer the doctrines of the pastor from 
those taught to the children in the sabbath school of the 
church, subject to his pastoral oversight, we are in posses- 
sion of a very plain exhibition of the sentiments of Dr. S. 
on this subject. We have before us a copy of the Cate- 
chism used in his sabbath school. Its title is, " The Ca- 
techism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines ; with 
Scriptural Questions and Answers. By the Rev. Mat- 
thew Henry, D. D., Author of the Commentary on the 
Bible. Also, A Familiar Exposition of the Lord's Prayer, 
in the form of Question and Answer, by the Rev. Wil- 
liam Patton." It is based on the " Shorter Catechism," 
and differs from it in these respects : — First, between the 
questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism there is a 
series of questions with negative or affirmative answers, as 
the case may require, and a short passage of Scripture, 
connected with each answer, to be repeated by the 
scholar in confirmation of it. Secondly, it contains an ex- 
position of the Lord's prayer in the form of question and 
answer. The reader will now be prepared for the extracts 
bearing on the question before us. First come the question 
and answer of the Shorter Catechism. We begin with the 
seventh question. 

" Q. 7. What are the decrees of God ? 

" A. The decrees of God are his eternal purposes, ac- 
cording to the counsel of his own will ; whereby, for his 
own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass." 

Then the questions and Scripture answers, among which 



288 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM 



are the following : — " Does God dispose of all things that 
come to pass ? Yes : 6 My times are in thy hand,' Psa. 
xxxi, 15. Does he do it according to his own will? Yes : 
for 6 he hath done whatsoever he pleased,' Psa. cxv, 2. 
Were all the events of time ordained from eternity ? Yes : 
' He performeth the thing that is appointed for me,' Job 
xxiii, 14. Does every thing come to pass as God has or- 
dained it 1 Yes : for there are many devices in a man's 
heart ; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall 
stand." 

" Q. 8. How does God execute his decrees ? 

" A. God executes his decrees in the works of creation 
and providence." 

Under this we have, among others, the following ques- 
tions and answers : — " Shall all God's decrees be executed ? 
Yes : ' for the Lord of hosts hath sworn, Surely as I have 
thought, so shall it surely come to pass,' Isa. xiv, 24. Can 
any of them be defeated ? No : for ' the Lord hath purposed, 
and who shall disannul it V Isa. xiv, 27." 

" Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the state 
of sin and misery ? 

" A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from 
all eternity, elected some to eternal life, did enter into a 
covenant of grace, to deliver them out of a state of sin and 
misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a 
Redeemer." 

Then we have the following interesting amplification for 
the benefit of youthful minds. 

" Did God particularly design the salvation of a portion 
of mankind ? Yes : ' there is a remnant according to the 
election of grace,' Rom. xi, 5. Are there some whom God 
has chosen ? Yes : 4 God hath from the beginning chosen 
you to salvation, through sanctiflcation of the Spirit,' 
2 Thess. ii, 3. Is there a certain number of such 1 Yes : for 
' their names are in the book of life,' Phil, iv, 3 ; Rev. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 289 

xiii, 8. Were they chosen from eternity ? Yes: * he has 
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,' Eph. 

i, 4. Were they chosen for the sake of any thing in them- 
selves ? No : 6 ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen 
you,' John xv, 16. But of his mere good pleasure 1 Yes : 
' he hath predestinated us according to the good pleasure 
of his will,' Eph. i, 5. Were they chosen to salvation as the 
end ? Yes : ' God hath appointed us to obtain salvation,' 
1 Thess. v, 9. And to sanctif 'cation as the means ? Yes : 
1 he has chosen us that we should be holy,' Eph. i, 4. 
Was it for the glory of God ? Yes : that he ' might make 
known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.' 

" Q. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect ? 

" A. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord 
Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became 
man ; and so was and continues to be, God and man in 
two distinct natures and one person for ever." 

Under this leading question and answer we have a sam- 
ple of Calvinistic free salvation — " Is he a universal Re- 
deemer ? Yes : 4 he gave himself a ransom for all,' 1 Tim. 

ii, 6. Did he die to purchase a general offer? Yes : ' the 
Son of man was lifted up, that whosoever believes in him 
should not perish,' John iii, 14, 15. Is Christ, in a spe- 
cial manner, the Redeemer of the elect 1 Yes : ' 1 lay down 
my life for the sheep,' John x, 15. Was their salvation par- 
ticularly designed in Christ's undertaking ? Yes : 6 thou hast 
given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
life to as many as thou hast given him,' John xvii, 2." 

" Q. 30. Hovj does the Spirit apply to us the redemption 
purchased by Christ ? 

" A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased 
by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us 
to Christ in our effectual calling. 

" Does the Spirit work faith in us ? Yes : c it is the faith 

of the operation of God,' Col. ii, 12. Shall it be wrought 

13 



290 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



in all the chosen ? Yes : ' for it is the faith of God's elect.' 
Tit. i, 1 . Are we united to Christ in our effectual calling 1 
Yes : 6 for we are called into the fellowship of his Son, 
Jesus Christ our Lord,' 1 Cor. i, 9. Will the common call 
unite us to Christ ? No : ' for many are called, but few are 
chosen,' Matt, xxii, 14. Is it the effectual call that does 
it ? Yes : ' for whom he called, them he justified,' Rom. 
viii, 10." 

And under the next question and answer of the Shorter 
Catechism, which relate to effectual calling, we find the 
following : — " Is it the grace of God that turns us to him 1 
Yes : 'the Lord opened the heart of Lydia,' Acts xvi, 14. 
Is it special grace ? Yes : ' it is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,' 
Rom. ix, 16. Shall this grace be given to all the elect 1 Yes : 
' all that the Father hath given me shall come unto me,' 
John vi, 37. Shall it be effectual? Yes: * his grace 
which was bestowed on me was not in vain,' 1 Cor. xv, 10. 
Can any turn to God without this special grace ? No : ' for 
no man can come to me, except the Father which hath 
sent me draw him,' John vi, 44." 

" Q. 36. What are the benefits which in this life do either 
accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctifica- 
tion ? 

" A. The benefits which in this life do either accom- 
pany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification, 
are assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, joy in 
the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein 
to the end. 

" Shall true believers persevere to the end ? Yes : ' for He 
that hath begun a good work will perform it,' Phil, i, 6. 
Will hypocrites persevere ? No : 6 these have no root, 
which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall 
away,' Luke viii, 13. Does it appear by their apostacy that 
they were never sincere ? Yes : * they went out from us. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 291 

because they were not of us ; for if they had been of us 
they would no doubt have continued with us,' 1 Johnii, 19. 
But shall any that are justified finally fall away ? No : ' for 
whom he justified, them he glorified, ' Rom. vii, 30, Can 
true grace be finally lost? No : it is 1 that good part which 
shall never be taken away,' " &c, &c. 

We presume that this is sufficiently plain for the un- 
derstanding even of Methodists, who are esteemed, by 
some Calvinists, to be remarkably dull of apprehension on 
such subjects. This catechism teaches that all the events 
of time were ordained from eternity ; that every thing 
comes to pass as God ordained it ; that God executes his 
own decrees, which extend to every event of time, and 
that none of them can be defeated ; that he has from 
eternity particularly designed to save, and chosen to salva- 
tion, a portion of mankind, not for the sake of any thing 
in themselves, but of his mere good pleasure, and that 
the number of such is predetermined ; that special grace 
is required to enable any to turn to God ; that this grace 
is given to all the elect, and is effectual in every in- 
stance ; that, although Christ is a universal Redeemer, 
and died to purchase a general offer, he is in a special 
manner the Redeemer of God's elect, and that their sal- 
vation was particularly designed in his undertaking ; that 
none but the elect are true believers ; that they can 
never fall away and be lost ; and that all who make a 
profession of religion and fall away, are hypocrites. 

We are not a little tempted to enlarge on the inconsis- 
tency of covering up these doctrines so carefully in the 
" Form of Admission" into the church ; of reprobating in 
the dedication sermon the inculcation of sectarian pecu- 
liarities ; of publishing the sermon for general circulation 
at the request of the officers of the church, and then in- 
troducing these doctrines into the sabbath school, exube- 
rant as they appear in this catechism, and instilling them 



292 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

into the minds of children ; but with this hint, we will 
leave our readers to their own reflections. 

We would here remind the reader that the Rev. Dr. 
Patton, one of the authors of this catechism, is a leading 
New School man ; and was a prominent actor in the sepa- 
ration which took place in the General Assembly of 1838, 
and also in the doings of the new Assembly. 

One passage, expressive of Dr. Beecher's sentiments, 
may suffice for the present. He says, " I have no sym- 
pathy for the opinion that it depends on sinners whether 
they be regenerated or not in the day of His power — or 
that God does all he can, and leaves the event of submis- 
sion or not to rebel man — and that sinners make them- 
selves to differ, and are in fact the self-determining 
authors of their own regeneration. The passages quoted 
to prove such an assertion are misunderstood and per- 
verted."— Views in Theology, p. 209. 

We have from the Rev. Dr. Cox, in his work on 
Quakerism, the following avowal, which it would be 
difficult to misinterpret : " Respecting predestination, 
without discussing a subject so extensive, so sinned 
against — not sinning, and so glorious and fundamental, 
I would affectionately suggest the following things: 1. 
It is both foolish and unfair to charge its alleged diffi- 
culties, as it is often done in this country, on Presbyte- 
rianism, or Calvinism. Before either of these existed, 
the very difficulties — which are wholly relative, and re- 
Milt from our ignorance, and folly, and unbelief alone — 
existed and were amply known. The premises of the 
doctrine are fully contained in Barclay's Apology ; since 
they are ultimately resolvable into the attributes of the 
infinite God. Omniscience — who can deny? — eter- 
nally knows all things, and anticipates them infallibly, in 
a system over which God presides, which he created and 
constantly upholds. For, 'although in relation to the 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 293 

foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all 
things come to pass immediately and infallibly, yet by 
the same providence he order eth them to fall out accord- 
ing to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, 
freely, or contingently.' — Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
chap, v, sect. 2. No absolute contingency exists ; yet all 
relative contingencies, such to us (and the world is full 
of them) are infallibly and economically foreknown in the 
system, and most wisely ordered and overruled by the 
eternal owner of all things. The means and the end of 
every related series are reciprocally connected and mutual- 
ly dependent in the constitution of God." — Quakerism not 
Christianity, p. 660, 

In this passage we are told that, in consequence of the 
decree of God, all things come to pass immediately and 
infallibly ; that no absolute contingency exists ; and that- 
relative contingencies are all ordered, as well as overruled, 
by God. 

The state of theology in the Baptist and Congregational 
churches generally, is the same as in the Presbyte- 
rian Church. They are Calvinistic, and divided into par- 
ties, which, if not distinguished by the appellations, Old 
School and New School, are known by the same doctrinal 
differences. Fuller, Hall, and Hinton among Baptists, are 
leading advocates of Xew Divinity, and yet decided Cal- 
vinists. We have before us the articles of belief of a 
New Divinity Baptist Church, in Stanton-street, New- 
York, which is supposed by some, to be quite Arminian. 
It is under the pastoral care of the Rev. George Benedict, 
a warm advocate apparently for free salvation. It con- 
tains the following sentiments :— 

" We believe — 

u Art. IV. That it is the duty of all mankind to repent 
of their sins, and believe upon Christ the Redeemer, and 
that the guilt and final misery of those who reject the gos- 



294 



NEW DIVINITY — -CALVINISM. 



pel will be greatly augmented by their unbelief, but that 
from the enmity of the human heart, none will come to 
Christ except by the special influences of the Holy Spirit, 
sent forth to effect within them the work of regeneration. 

" Art. V. That all who are thus brought to repentance 
and faith receive the grace of regeneration, not of their 
own merit, but of God's free grace, that they were chosen 
in Christ to salvation before the foundation of the world, 
and that nothing can separate them from the love of God, 
but they shall be kept by his power through faith unto 
salvation, the sure and final proof of their genuine faith 
consisting in the continuance of their attachment and 
obedience to Christ, to the end of their present life." 

Here it is most explicitly avowed that none will come 
to Christ without the special influence of the Holy Spirit ; 
that all who were regenerated by it were chosen in 
Christ to this distinction before the foundation of the 
world, and that nothing can defeat their salvation. There 
is, then, this grand distinction between those who are 
saved and those who are lost — the former were elect- 
ed to salvation before they were born r the latter were 
not. It is not our intention to controvert this doctrine, 
but we would suggest, that if the songs of the redeemed 
are to be influenced by the principles on which their sal- 
vation is achieved, and any of these non-elect, whose du- 
ty it is to repent of their sins and believe in Christ, 
should happen to perform their duty, and be saved, they 
will compose a choir by themselves ; for while others 
celebrate eternal election, and special influences, they 
will be compelled to hymn the praises of natural ability, 
and common grace. 

Probably some of our readers have supposed, that, at 
least, Mr. Finney, and his immediate disciples, are free 
from Calvinism. This is not the case. He gives his 
views of election in a sermon on this subject. After 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



295 



stating in several propositions what it is not, he proceeds 
to state positively what it is. He says : " But by the 
doctrine of election is intended that a part of the human 
family are chosen to eternal salvation; that not only are 
they chosen as a whole, but as individuals, every one of 
whom will be finally saved." He gives us to understand 
that the elect are chosen to salvation previous to their 
conversion. One of his negative propositions says : " Nor 
that the unconverted elect are any better than the non- 
elect." Again he proposes to " show when the election 
was made," and on this point remarks, " The apostle says 
it was before the world began, or from eternity." 

Here, then, we have the election of a certain number 
of individuals to eternal salvation, from eternity, every one 
of whom will be finally saved, leaving none to be 
damned, but those who are not thus elected. 

Mr. F. attempts to vindicate the proceedings of God, in 
this election, from the charge of impartiality and injustice. 
He tells us that the atonement is sufficient for all ; that God 
offers mercy to all ; that God as strongly desires the salva- 
tion of the non-elect ; and that the only reason why the 
non-elect will not be saved, is because they pertinaciously 
refuse salvation. But he has already destroyed this pre- 
tence by assuring us that the elect were no better than 
the non-elect ; this therefore, cannot be the cause of the 
difference in their destiny. He also informs us that God, 
in confining election to those whom he has elected, has 
done the best he could for the whole universe. He inti- 
mates that it might have caused terrible confusion had he 
elected more persons, or others than those he has elected; 
that in " the best possible administration of his govern- 
ment he can bring sufficient amount of moral influence 
to bear on the elect to convert them, and that it is a con- 
tradiction to say that the same amount of moral influence 
can be brought to bear upon every individual of the 



296 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



human family." But with suitable deference to Mr. F.'s 
acumen, we feel prompted to declare that we cannot see 
what great harm could have resulted to angels or men, 
from the election, conversion, holiness, and salvation of 
all, on the same principle ; since the atonement is suffi- 
cient for all, and God desired the salvation of all, and the 
moral character of the elect, when elected to salvation, 
was no better than that of the reprobate. 

According to the Arminian doctrine of election, it is 
easy to prove the impartiality and justice of God in 
saving some and damning others, but on the Calvinistic 
system it is utterly impossible. 

Dr. Taylor, of New-Haven, in a letter to Dr. Hawes, 
in which he states his theological opinions in view of the 
fact that his orthodoxy was called in question, makes the 
following avowals : — 

" I believe, — 

" 2. That the eternal purposes of God extend to all 
actual events, sin not excepted ; or that God foreordains 
whatsoever comes to pass, and so executes these purposes 
as to leave the free moral agency of man unimpaired." 

" 9. That the renewing grace of God is special (in dis- 
tinction from that which is common, and is resisted by the 
sinful mind) inasmuch as it is that which is designed to 
secure, and does infallibly secure, the conversion of the 
sinner. 

"10. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit are 
elected or chosen of God from eternity, that they should 
be holy, not on account of foreseen faith or good works, 
but according to the good pleasure of his will. 

"11. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit will, 
through his continued influence, persevere in holiness to 
the end, and obtain eternal life. 

" Such is my faith in respect to some of the leading 
doctrines of the gospel. These doctrines I preach ; these 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



297 



doctrines I teach in the theological department of this 
seminary ; these I have repeatedly published to the world. 
With what trutii or justice any regard me as a i teacher 
of theology introducing heresy into our churches,' the 
candid can judge. 

" But it may be asked whether, after all, there are not 
some points on which I differ from my brethren generally, 
or, at least, from some of them ? I answer, It would be 
strange if any two men should be found to agree exactly 
in all the minute matters of religious opinion. With res- 
pect, however, to what is properly considered the ortho- 
dox or Calvinistic system of doctrines, as including the 
great facts of Christianity, and as opposed to, and dis- 
tinguished from, the Unitarian, Pelagian, and Arminian 
systems, I suppose there is between the orthodox ministry 
and myself an entire agreement." — Christian Spectator, 
Vol. iv, No. 1. 

Such, then, are the sentiments of Dr. Taylor, who is 
supposed by many to be irrecoverably gone from Calvinism. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

Some of the prominent writers of the New School party 
in the Calvinistic Churches, carry their Calvinism so far 
as to involve in doubt the doctrine that all who die in in- 
fancy are saved. 

In an editorial article which appeared in the New- York 
Evangelist, when edited by the Rev. Joshua Leavitt— a 
paper which had its origin under the auspices of New 
Divinity, and has been devoted to its interests ever since, 
may be found the following sentiments :— 

13* 



298 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

" As the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to give us definite 
instructions on these points, and there seems to be nothing 
which we can do for such little ones, to fit them for hea- 
ven, would any thing be lost to the cause of practical 
piety, if we should all consent to leave the whole case of 
dying infants to the wisdom and benevolence of Him who 
says, ' The secret things belong unto the Lord our God V " 

Would an intelligent writer, who firmly believes in the 
salvation of all who die in infancy, express himself thus ? 
Would he place the whole case of dying infants among the 
secret things belonging to God, and with reference to 
which the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to give us definite 
instructions, and suggest that there is nothing gained to 
the cause of practical piety by discussing the subject? 
This is not the language of Arminianism. 

The Rev. Dr. Cox assumes the same ground. In his 
work on Quakerism he remarks : — 

" There are questions and facts unresolved on this 
article of the 6 common faith,' which embarrass really, if 
not equally, every theory that was ever soberly framed 
for its elucidation. Such as these, — Have idiots souls ? 
What becomes of them ? — and monsters, what of them ? — 
and so of millions of unborn children, of dead-born, of de- 
stroyed embryos, &c. ? Were all these represented in 
Adam? How are they related to him — how to Christ? 
Where there is no evidence, we had better have no 
theory. The Scripture is often eloquent in its omissions. 
If, for example, it had affirmed the salvation of all infants, 
or any class of them, under a certain age, the conse- 
quences had been terrible ! What fears for those who 
should die ever so little past that age ! What temptations 
to infanticide under it, especially to guilty parents ! What 
vain repinings and murmurings among some, that they did 
not die earlier ! How were the value of life cheapened, 
and a due preparation for death obstructed and postponed ! 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 299 

These difficulties are not properly the opprobria theologies, 
they are ' the secret things which belong to God.' " — p. 669. 

It is clearly the doctrine of this passage, that we have 
no more information respecting the fate of dying infants, 
than on the questions, Have idiots souls ? what becomes 
of monsters 1 &c. ; that this is one of the eloquent omis- 
sions of Scripture ; that we have no information on this 
subject, and therefore had better have no theory ; that this 
is one of the secret things which belong to God. It is 
argued that if the Scriptures had affirmed the salvation of 
all infants, or any class of them, under a certain age, it 
would have led to terrible consequences — to fears for those 
who might die ever so little past that age — to vain re- 
pinings among some, that they did not die earlier — to a 
cheapening of the value of human life and the postpone- 
ment of the preparation for death — and, finally, to strong 
temptations to infanticide. 

Mr. Duffield adverts to this subject in the work to which 
we have so often referred. His language is characterized 
by great caution, but yet sufficiently indicates the position 
he occupies. In the chapter on the " Moral Condition of 
Deceased Infants," he remarks, — 

" The death of the infant is no more proof of its final 
condemnation, than the death of the believer. On the con- 
trary, as the infant has neither done good nor evil, the pre- 
sumption arising from its death would rather seem to be, 
that inasmuch as its powers, if it had remained in this 
world, would have been developed in sin, so its removal 
to another and essentially different world — where all its 
modes of acquiring knowledge, and also of acting, will be 
essentially different — will most probably conduce to in- 
stantaneous and lofty exhibitions of holiness. 

" It is true, that the presumption may be applied the 
other way. Inasmuch as God visits on the infant the sin 
of Adam — subjecting it to disease and death, and placing 



300 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

it in a world, and under the operation of laws which 
operate with certainty to secure its voluntary sinning, as 
soon as capable of moral agency ; and inasmuch as one 
of the consequences of such rebellion against God is, that 
a change will take place, either sooner or later, in the out- 
ward circumstances and relations of men in this world, by 
virtue of which much more rapid and frightful develop- 
ments of iniquity shall be made — why may we not con- 
clude that, in the exercise of his sovereignty, God sees fit 
to anticipate such things, and transfer one and another, forth- 
with as they come into this world, to a new scene of exist- 
ence, where the full and final results of Adam's apostacy 
are displayed 1 Especially so, it might be added, since the 
promise of grace, in the covenant, seems to contemplate 
none other than the children of believers. ' 1 will be a God 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee ;' and since there can 
be no more inconsistency with divine justice to place an 
infant in circumstances where it will become a sinner 
sooner than later, provided there is not to place it in such 
circumstances at all. We confess, therefore, that nothing 
ought to be rashly and positively asserted on this subject 
either way. 

" It would seem as if God had not seen it proper to give 
us any decisive information on this subject; and we can 
see great wisdom and goodness too, in his keeping us in 
absolute ignorance on this point. Were the former pre- 
sumption an established truth, and reverently received 
among men, there is no knowing what mischievous con- 
sequences might result from it, nor how far men, to render 
their darling babes eternally happy, might be tempted to 
become the murderers of their own offspring. And were 
the latter an established truth, with what heart-rending 
agony would every sensitive soul see the infant consigned 
to the tomb. It is well that Providence has thrown an 
impenetrable veil over this thing. Yet, if we may be 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 301 

allowed to indulge a fond conjecture, the presumption 
seems strongest that the death of the infant is a procedure 
of mercy, rather than of vindictive justice. For, as the 
great rule of procedure on the judgment day shall be, that 
God ' will render unto every one according to the deeds 
done in the body, whether they be good or evil,' the 
righteous and the wicked shall receive their award and 
allotment upon a principle which it is manifest, in the 
nature of things, cannot be adopted with regard to those 
dying in infancy." — p. 351. 

The import of this passage is obvious, notwithstanding 
the cloudy verbiage in which some of its awful arguments 
are clothed. It assumes that God has not seen fit to give 
us any decisive information on this subject — that he has 
thrown an impenetrable veil over it — that he has kept us 
in absolute ignorance on this point — that he has manifested 
great wisdom and goodness in this procedure — and that it 
would be rash in us to assert any thing on this subject, 
positively, either way. It contains several presumptions 
in favour of the supposition that some infants are damned. 
Mr. D. cannot see, if God may subject the infant to dis- 
ease and death, and place it in a world where it will com- 
mit sin, and may become a very wicked man or woman, 
and from which it may pass into the state and place of 
final punishment, why, in the exercise of his sovereignty, 
he may not also " anticipate such things" by transferring 
children to hell " forthwith," as soon " as they come into 
the world." There is also a presumption to this effect, in 
the estimation of Mr. D., arising from the well-known 
doctrine, held by many, if not all Calvinists, that " the 
promise of grace, in the covenant, seems to contemplate 
none other than the children of believers." He further 
concludes, that if there be no inconsistency with divine 
justice in placing an infant in this world, in which it will 
become a sinner, there can be none in placing it sooner 



302 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



than later in another world, where it will be a sinner. 
The rest you must imagine. 

He argues against the supposition that all infants, dying 
in infancy, are saved. If it were " an established truth, 
and reverently believed, there is no knowing what mis- 
chievous consequences might result from it, nor how far 
men, to render their darling babes eternally happy, might 
be tempted to become the murderers of their own offspring." 
It is true he finds presumptions on the other side of the 
question — but they are feeble and indefinite. As the in- 
fant has done neither good nor evil, and as, in death, it is 
removed to " another and essentially different world," the 
circumstances amid which it is placed " will most pro- 
bably conduce to instantaneous and lofty exhibitions of 
holiness." He is not sure that this will be the case, but 
thinks it probable. And indeed any one must perceive 
that this will depend very much on the character of the 
world to which it is removed, which is the very thing to 
be ascertained, and about which there is so much un- 
certainty. Again : if he " may be allowed to indulge a 
fond conjecture, the presumption seems strongest that the 
death of the infant is a procedure of mercy rather than of 
vindictive justice." What he means by a procedure of 
mercy, we are not certain. He may mean, for all that we 
can see, that as none but the children of believers are in- 
cluded in the covenant of mercy, and as God can, as con- 
sistently with justice, send non-elect infants to hell, as 
bring them into this world, keep them here until they 
become adult sinners, and then consign them to that 
destiny ; that to cut them off and damn them in infancy 
would be merciful rather than vindictive, inasmuch as their 
living longer would only increase their responsibility, guilt, 
and misery. But if we give these terms the most favour- 
able construction, still he only indulges a fond conjecture 
on this point — a fond conjecture that the presumption on 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



303 



the side of mercy seems the strongest. Nor is there any 
thing definite to be gathered from the suggestion, that the 
principle on which the righteous and the wicked will re- 
ceive their award, cannot be applied to infants, since there 
are very strong presumptions in Mr. D.'s mind, of the 
existence of some principle on which they may be 
damned. 

Mr. Barnes, in a note to his sermon on " The Way of 
Salvation," disavows the doctrine of the damnation of in- 
fants, not only in behalf of himself, but also of the whole 
" Presbyterian Church in this country," and of " Calvin- 
ists of the present day." " It is admitted," he says, " with 
regret, that it has been held, by a few, that infants may be 
lost. This must be conceded in regard to Dr. Gill, Dr. 
Twisse, and a few others." He also denies that the doc- 
trine ever " had any essential connection with Calvinism." 
" It grew," he says, " out of the doctrine of imputation of 
Adam's sin, or our acting in him — a sentiment as fully held, 
in principle, by Arminians, as it ever was by their op- 
ponents." He says that " an assertion that such an 
opinion is held — that it is maintained that * there are in- 
fants in hell not a span long,' unless the cases where it 
has been done are distinctly and specifically referred to, 
in the language of the law is slander." 

We have no disposition to dispute about the length of 
the infants whose fate we are discussing, and certainly as 
little desire to be prosecuted for slander ; but we have 
made up our mind to run the awful risk of disputing the 
correctness of some of Mr. B.'s positions. We affirm that 
the doctrine has an essential connection with Calvinism. 
It results by the plainest process of deduction, not only 
from the entire system, but from several of its leading 
doctrines taken separately. 

Take, first, the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as 
stated in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of Mr. 



304 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



B.'s Church, and as asserted by himself in his notes on 
Romans ix. If God has elected to eternal salvation a de- 
finite number of individuals — if these were elected before 
they were born — before the foundation of the world — even 
from eternity — if all these will be infallibly saved, and 
none others — what is the most obvious inference respect- 
ing the future condition of those infants dying in infancy, 
who are not included among the elect I There can be 
but one answer, and that is — that they are lost. The in- 
ference is strengthened, if it be possible to add to its 
strength, by the provision which Mr. B.'s creed makes for 
the salvation of elect infants. "Elect infants dying in 
infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the 
Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he 
pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are 
incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the 
word." This provision is made for elect infants in view 
of the existence of two classes, and in contradistinction to 
those who are non-elect. But if it is made for them, and 
them alone, what is to become of the other class ? Will 
they be saved without regeneration " by Christ through 
the Spirit ?" This will not answer. It -is curious to ob- 
serve how Mr. B. attempts to make it appear that the 
language of the Confession of Faith respecting elect in- 
fants does not imply that others may be lost. This infer- 
ence, he says, " cannot be sustained. The authors of the 
Confession, like the sacred writers, were in the habit of 
calling all those who were saved, ' the elect.' They 
spoke of infants saved, as a part of the elect — a part of the 
race chosen to salvation. They affirm not that any are 
lost ; nor can it be proved that they meant to imply it." 
It is not necessary to our argument to maintain that they 
affirm positively that any are lost, or to decide what they 
meant to imply. The question at present is simply, What 
is the logical inference from what they do assert 1 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



305 



We affirm it to be that non-elect infants, dying in in- 
fancy, are not regenerated and saved by Christ through 
the Spirit. Mr. B. denies that any such inference fol- 
lows. He says that the framers of the Confession were 
merely classing saved infants among the elect. But this 
mode of stating the case does not relieve the difficulty 7 . 
For if some are elected to salvation, while others are not 
— and we are gravely informed that all infants saved are 
of the elect — what is the obvious inference respecting 
non-elect infants ? They must be classed with the un- 
saved. The distinction between saved and unsaved in- 
fants is as clearly recognised by Mr. B. as the distinction 
between elect and non-elect infants. Thus his explanation 
leads directly to the result which it was intended to ob- 
viate. The fact that he resorted to such an explanation 
shows that he felt himself to be in great difficulty ; for 
any person of ordinary intelligence can perceive, at one 
glance, that the authors of the Confession were not merely 
representing infants saved as a part of the elect. They 
were stating by what means elect infants are regenerated 
and saved ; and they do it in such a way as to restrict the 
application of the specified means to those who are elect. 
Our inference is sustained also by direct assertion in an- 
other part of the same creed, where it is said, that " as 
God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by 
the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained 
all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, 
being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectu- 
ally called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in 
due season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by 
his power, through faith unto salvation. Neither are any 
other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, 
sanctified, and saved, but the elect onlyP 

It will not do for Calvinists to say that all infants are 
elect ; for then, according to their scheme, all adults would 



306 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

be elect, and universal salvation would be the result. Nor 
is this inconsistency chargeable on Mr. B. He gives us 
his views of the application of the doctrine of election to 
infants in his Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. On the 
words of the apostle, " Neither, because they are the seed 
of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy 
seed be called," ix, 7, he remarks, " Shall thy seed, &c. 
— Thy true people. This implied a selection, or choice ; 
and, therefore, the doctrine of election was illustrated in 
the very commencement of the history of the nation ; and 
as God had then made such a distinction, he might still do 
it. As he had then rejected a part of the natural descend- 
ants of Abraham, so he might still do it. This is the 
argument the apostle is pursuing." And on the words 
which occur in the next verse, " but the children of the 
promise are counted for the seed," he remarks, " Are count- 
ed — Are regarded, or reckoned. God reckons things as 
they are ; and therefore designed that they should be his 
true children. As the seed — The spiritual children of 
God ; the partakers of his mercy and salvation. This 
refers, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and to salvation ; 
and therefore has relation, not to nations as such, but to 
individuals." And on verses 10 and 11, which relate to 
the immediate posterity of Isaac and Rebecca, he says, 
" Not only is the principle of making a distinction among 
the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the 
promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the 
birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the 
principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity 
of Abraham was recognsied in the original promise, thus 
proving that all the descendants of Abraham were of course 
to be saved ; and he now proceeds to show that the prin- 
ciple was recognised in the case of his posterity in the 
family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to 
any natural principles that the selection was made ; that 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



307 



he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, 
but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing 
the younger to be the object of his favour, and rejecting 
the elder, who, according to the custom of the times, was 
supposed to be entitled to peculiar honour and rights. And 
in order to prove that this was done according to his own 
good pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made 
before they were born ; before they had formed any cha- 
racter ; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not 
be pretended that it was in consequence of any works they 
had performed." 

In these quotations it is maintained by Mr. B. that God 
made a distinction among the immediate descendants of 
Abraham, electing one of his sons and his posterity, and 
rejecting the other and his posterity ; that the same dis- 
tinction was made in the family of Isaac between Jacob 
and Esau, " choosing the younger to be the object of his 
favour, and rejecting the elder ;" that this was done ac- 
cording to the good pleasure of God, which is proved by 
the fact that he made this distinction between them " be- 
fore they were born ; before they had formed any charac- 
ter ; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be 
pretended that it was in consequence of any works which 
they had performed ;" that the election and rejection "re- 
fer, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and salvation," and 
have relation " to individuals ;" and that those elected are 
chosen to be " the spiritual children of God, the partakers 
of his mercy and salvation ;" and, further, that as God has 
made this distinction in times that are past, he may " still 
do it." 

We now ask, what must have become of those children 
who were not chosen to spiritual privileges and salvation, 
but rejected, had they died in infancy ? Would they have 
been saved 1 Certainly not; for that would have destroyed 
the distinction between them and the others. It would have 



308 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



proved that they, too, were chosen to salvation. The in- 
ference is inevitable that they must have been lost. 

The only way that remains of avoiding this troublesome 
inference is, by adopting the hypothesis that none but 
elect infants die in infancy. Whether Mr. B. intends to 
take refuge in this or not, we cannot positively affirm ; but 
his language strongly implies it. In the first place, he 
admits, with regret, that a few have held the doctrine that 
infants may be lost. Of course lie does not hold that doc- 
trine. In the second place, he considers all saved infants 
as belonging to the elect. If, then, no infants die in in- 
fancy but what are saved, and all saved infants are of the 
elect, it follows, incontestably, that none but elect chil- 
dren die in infancy. But the mind that can seriously en- 
tertain such a supposition must have a predilection for 
absurdity. It must be prepared to believe, that while in- 
fants are divided into two classes, elect and non-elect, of 
all the infants that have died of ordinary sickness, of epi- 
demics, or by accident, or war, or famine, or pestilence, 
every non-elect infant has escaped, and those of the elect 
alone have fallen ; that when the cruel edict of Herod 
caused the blood of infants to be poured out like water, 
and when that of Pharaoh consigned them by thousands 
to the monsters of the Nile, not one single victim was 
taken from among the reprobates — still the slain were all 
God's elect ; that when the judgments of God are abroad, 
he extends the mysterious protection of his providence, 
not to those who are destined to be regenerated and saved, 
and become the salt of the earth, but to those who are to 
remain impenitent and rebellious ; that in the whole ante- 
diluvian world that perished by the flood, there was not 
one non-elect infant, or if there were, it was in the family 
of Noah, and was carefully preserved, while the elect were 
drowned ; that if God had suspended this judgment for a 
while, he would have had no reason to complain that all 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



309 



flesh had corrupted its way, as there would have been a 
generation of his own chosen people, equal in number to 
all the infants that perished by the deluge ; that there was 
not a single non-elect infant in the cities of Sodom and 
Gomorrah when those cities were destroyed, but that 
every infant consumed by that fearful conflagration was 
of the elect. If this supposition be true, it may be made 
a question, whether, in the case of non-elect infants, "the 
flesh will quiver where the pincers tear," or " the blood 
follow where the knife is driven." But it is needless to 
enlarge on this point. 

The doctrine of the damnation of infants results, inevita- 
bly, from the doctrine that Christ did not make an atonement 
for all. If all who are saved are saved on the ground of 
atonement, those for whom Christ has not died must be 
lost. This conclusion applies equally to children and adults. 

Precisely the same conclusion follows the doctrine 
which extends the atonement to all, but limits its applica- 
tion to a part. This is Mr. B.'s theory. The application 
of the atonement is supposed to be necessary to salvation, 
but this is confined to the elect by the divine decree. Of 
course, all to whom the atonement is not applied must be 
lost, whether infants or adults. 

This blood-freezing tenet is also deducible from the very 
popular doctrine of the " perseverance of the saints," as 
held by Calvinists. According to this doctrine, if any are 
finally lost, it is because they were never in grace — never 
in the favour of God — never within the limits of that king- 
dom, the subjects of which are heirs of salvation. For 
had they ever been in this condition, they would have been 
saved infallibly. It follows, then, that if any are damned 
at mature age, they were not in the favour of God while 
infants. If they were, they must have so continued while 
adults, and so have been saved. What, then, must have 
been the fate of those who are lost, had they died in 



310 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

infancy ? Must they not have been lost? Take the case of 
the " rich man," spoken of in the gospels, for example. 
It is declared by the Saviour that " in hell he lifted up his 
eyes." Now it is undeniable, according to the Calvinistic 
doctrine of final perseverance, that this man was never in 
the favour of God — that he never, not even while he was 
an infant, stood in that relation to God which would have 
secured to him eternal life, supposing him to have died in 
that condition, otherwise he must have continued in that 
condition, and so have been finally saved. What then 
must have become of the rich man had he died in infancy ? 
The question admits of but one answer. 

Perhaps an attempt may be made to evade the force of 
this reasoning, by affirming that all infants are in the fa- 
vour of God, and therefore safe, dying in infancy. This 
is, indeed, the very truth. But suppose the doctrine of 
final perseverance, as held by Calvinists, to be true, and 
it will follow, indubitably, that all adults are in the favour 
of God, since all adults, except Adam and Eve, were once 
infants. Thus we are fairly landed on the shores of Uni- 
versalism. The only way to escape Universalism on the 
one hand, or the damnation of infants on the other, is to 
abandon this doctrine of " infallible perseverance." 

It may possibly be suggested that the arrangement 
which secures the infallible perseverance of the saints 
does not take effect until conversion, and that, although 
the infant is in the favour of God, it may lose that advan- 
tage by personal transgression, as soon as it arrives at the 
period of moral accountability. It would seem, then, that 
men and women may fall into sin after their conversion — 
may deny their Lord, and commit the sin of adultery, and 
idolatry, like Peter, and David, and Solomon, and yet re- 
main in a state of security, while the poor child falls un- 
der the condemnation of the law of God, and is exposed 
to hell for the first childish transgression. Can any one 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



311 



believe that God administers the plan of salvation on prin- 
ciples so very discordant, and so grossly partial to the 
grown-up sinner ? Besides, such a subterfuge would be in 
direct denial of "the immutability of the decree of elec- 
tion," which applies equally to infants and adults, and on 
which, the Confession says, the " perseverance of the 
saints depends." It would be destructive of the entire 
system of Calvinism. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

The doctrine which excludes from the covenant of 
grace a portion of mankind, leads directly to the inference 
that infants may be lost. This doctrine is advanced by 
Mr. Dunield in the following passage, as furnishing a pre- 
sumption on the side of the damnation of infants. "Es- 
pecially so, it might be added, since the promise of grace, 
in the covenant, seems to contemplate none other than the 
children of believers, 4 1 will be a God to thee, and to thy 
seed after thee/ " Now, if no human being can be saved 
but by the covenant of grace, and that covenant includes 
a particular class of mankind, and " none other," the dam- 
nation of the rest is inevitable, whether they die in in- 
fancy or old age ; and the appalling presumption of Mr. 
D. is amply sustained. 

Although it is essential to Calvinism thus to limit the 
subjects of covenant mercy, it is not essential to it to in- 
clude all the children of believers in the covenant, or con- 
fine its advantages to them. The system would be unim- 
paired by the supposition, that God elects the subjects of 
salvation from among the children both of believers and 



312 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



unbelievers, and rejects others on the same principle. 
The doctrine that all the children of believers, and none 
other, are included in the covenant of grace, probably had 
its origin in the emergencies which have grown out of 
parental sensibility. It will be found a hard task to re- 
concile a religious community to a system of doctrine 
which spreads so gloomy an uncertainty over the destiny 
of their deceased little ones. But that difficulty is oppor- 
tunely removed by the assurance, that the children of be- 
lievers are all safe. Let them be convinced of this, and 
they will, probably, not only be reconciled to the system, 
but feel a strong attachment to it. The Rev. Dr. Miller, 
of Princeton, in an essay on infant baptism, founds an ar- 
gument in favour of " the church membership of the infant 
seed of believers" on parental sympathy. " The close and 
endearing connection between parents and children" he says, 
" affords a strong argument in its favour. The voice of na- 
ture is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in behalf of 
our cause. The thought of severing parents from their 
offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in 
which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to 
place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling and 
natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem 
is in the Church the branch is out of it ? Can it be tha* 
when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Re- 
deemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his 
flesh, have no connection with it 1 It is not so in any other 
society that the great moral Governor of the world ever 
formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born 
citizens of the state in which the parents resided at the 
time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are ple- 
nary citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to all 
the privileges of that relation, whenever they become ca- 
pable of exercising them. From these duties they cannot 
be liberated — of these privileges they cannot be deprived, 



NEW DIVINITY 



■CALVINISM, 



313 



but by the commission of crime. But why should this 
principle be set aside in the Church of God ? Surely it is 
not less obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature." 
— Presbyterian Tracts, vol. i. 

The effect of this reasoning is to extend a saving interest 
in the covenant of mercy to all the children of believers. 
For what are church membership, and baptism, if eternally 
separated from the spiritual blessings necessary to sal- 
vation ? Surely, if the thought of excluding " the infant 
seed of believers" from these outward privileges would be 
so revolting to " natural law" and " Christian feeling," it 
would be much more so to suppose them excluded from 
salvation, and thus severed from their parents. And this 
is what the author intends. He tells us that the covenant 
"had a respect to spiritual as well as temporal blessings." 

This comfortable notion, however, when connected with 
the system of Calvinism, leads to endless perplexities and 
contradictions ; for, if all who are entitled to the spiritual 
blessings of the new covenant are elect, and must con- 
tinue in that relation, it will follow that the whole pos- 
terity of the first faithful parents must be saved. Noah 
was a righteous man ; all his children are therefore safe ; 
and consequently all their children ; and, inasmuch as the 
whole post-diluvian population descended from him, every 
one who has lived since the flood is safe. Moreover, we 
have only to suppose that Adam and Eve were at any 
time the true children of God, and all the world is safe. 

Thus we see that this consolatory provision destroys 
Calvinism, by running it into Universalism. Nor is this 
result avoided by the restricting clause ; since to restrict 
the great and saving benefits of the covenant to the chil- 
dren of believers, is, in effect, nothing more nor less than 
to restrict them to every descendant of Adam. 

We have been led to think that these difficulties have 
not wholly escaped the observation of the advocates of 

14 



314 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

this doctrine. On reading a work entitled " Household 
Consecration," by Rev. N. E. Johnson, (a work evidently 
based on this principle, and which, besides its inconsist- 
encies, contains many excellences, and is, on the whole, 
highly creditable to the heart and the intellect of its au- 
thor,) we observe that, in tracing the principle; both before 
and after the flood, he very wisely waits until there are 
several distinct families in existence before he brings it 
into operation, and in this way he obtains the distinction 
of " pious and impious families." 

The heterogeneousness of this doctrine, with the sys- 
tem in which it is incorporated, is illustrated by a passage 
in Barnes' Notes on Romans. The doctrine is supposed 
to be inculcated by the terms of the covenant which God 
made with Abraham : " I will be a God to thee, and to 
thy seed after thee." But we find Calvinism making a 
distinction in this particular among the immediate de- 
scendants of Abraham. On Rom. ix, 7 : " Neither be- 
cause they are the seed of Abraham are they all children," 
&c, Mr. B. remarks, " This implies a selection or choice: 
and therefore the doctrine of election was illustrated in the 
very commencement of the nation," Sic. Thus the doc- 
trine is fairly exploded : Abraham had but two children, 
one of which was included in, and the other excluded from 
the covenant. But Mr. B. is not at all daunted by this 
aspect of affairs. He considers the doctrine established, 
rather than endangered by this distinction. On verse 10, 
he remarks, " He had shown that the principle of thus 
making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was 
recognised in the original promise ; thus proving that all 
the descendants of Abraham were of course to be saved" 
Now, then, we suppose that this principle will have fair 
play, and be subject to no more interruptions. Is it so ? 
Will all the descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac 
be saved as a matter of course ? So Mr. B, explicitly de- 



NEW DIVINITY- — CALVINISM. 315 

dares. But the genius of Calvinism suddenly appears 
with frowning brow — Mr. B. recognises his approach, 
pays his profoundest homage to the awful apparition, and 
consents that a distinction shall be made among the de- 
scendants of Abraham, in the very next generation — that 
Jacob shall be chosen, and Esau rejected ; and that such 
distinctions in families shall be made throughout all future 
generations. The grim visitant relaxes his frown, smiles 
horrible satisfaction at the sacrifice, and retires. Mr. 
B. must not, however, expect quite so submissive a de- 
ference to his reasonings on the part of Arminians, when 
he still insists that these distinctions among the descend- 
ants of Abraham are not only consistent with the salvation 
of all his posterity, but prove that they were all " of course 
to be saved." 

The believers of Calvinism must, therefore, to be con- 
sistent, choose between the alternatives of adopting Uni- 
versalism, or giving up the doctrine that all the children 
of believers are included in the covenant of election ; and 
acknowledge that their children are as liable to be ex- 
cluded from that covenant, and consequently from salva- 
tion, as those of ungodly parents. Indeed, it is truly 
remarkable that they should claim the benefit of such an 
arrangement for themselves, and deny it to poor Isaac and 
Rebecca ; one of whose twin children, they tell us, was 
elected to eternal salvation before it was born, and the 
other passed by, and left to live in sin and be destroyed. 
The argument of Dr. Miller : " Can it be, my friends, that 
when the stem is in the Church, the branch is out of it ? M 
is considered of no avail here. The elect must therefore 
be content with their own election, and not claim the same 
advantage for all their children, 

The reader will be able to perceive by this time with 
how much reason Mr. B. so earnestly asserts that the doc- 
trine that infants may be lost, has no essential connection 



316 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

with Calvinism. He refers it to " the doctrine of the 
imputation of Adam's sin, or our acting in him," as its 
source. This " sentiment," he says, " is as fully held in 
principle by Arminians as it ever was by their oppo- 
nents." He thus attempts to involve Arminians in the 
same difficulty with himself. But this representation is 
grossly sophistical. The difference between Arminianism 
and Calvinism at this point is vast and essential. There 
is a great gulf between them ; for whatever views Armi- 
nians may entertain respecting the condition in which 
Adam's offence placed his posterity, they maintain that 
the principles and provisions of the mediatorial econo- 
my place all infants within the precincts of the kingdom 
of grace, and, therefore, in a condition of perfect security 
while infants. This condition, they believe, may be sub- 
sequently forfeited by voluntary transgression. They deny 
the Calvinistic view of election to eternal life, and hold 
that the election proceeds on principles very different from 
those alleged by Calvinists. Besides, it is not the doc- 
trine of imputation simply, however far it may be carried, 
which endangers the salvation of infants. For the most 
rigid Calvinists hold that the elect are secure, notwith- 
standing this imputation: It is the limitation of the re- 
deeming covenant and its spiritual blessings — the doctrine 
of the election of a definite number to these privileges, 
exclusive of the rest, which creates all the difficulty. It is 
not the fact that all are diseased, which renders the death 
of some inevitable, but the restricted application of the re- 
medy. Nor does Mr. B. escape the difficulty by rejecting 
the doctrine of imputation. His theory places all mankind 
in precisely the same condition, so far as their prospect of 
salvation is concerned, although by another process. He 
holds, as we have shown, to the election of a definite num- 
ber to eternal life — that mankind are distinguished as elect 
and non-elect before they are bom, and, therefore, while 



NEW DIXINITY CALVINISM. 317 

they are infants. He justifies God in choosing to salva- 
tion a "definite number," by representing all as u justly 
condemned," and argues that God has therefore a " right to 
save whom he pleases." He illustrates his argument by 
saying, " The executive of a country may select any num- 
ber of criminals whom he may see fit to pardon, or who 
may be forgiven, in consistency with the supremacy of the 
laws, and the welfare of the community, and none has a 
right to murmur, but ever}- good citizen should rejoice that 
any maybe pardoned with safety." — Notes on Rom. ix, 15. 

Mr. B. holds to what may be called, for distinction's 
sake, the constitution theory. In a review of " The Case 
of -Mr. Barnes," in the Christian Spectator for June, 1831, 
adverting to the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, the 
reviewer says, " In this scheme it is of course implied that 
the evils which came on the posterity, came in the way, or 
in the mode of a strictly legal process ; that the evils were 
the legal penalty due to sin, and as such were inflicted on 
the ground that the first sin of Adam was in its ill desert 
the sin of all his posterity." He then goes on to repu- 
diate this doctrine, and give what he considers the truth on 
the subject, " Now this mode of consequence, the New- 
England divines, for more than sixty years, have generally 
denied, and strenuously opposed ; and maintained simply, 
in respect to the mode, that if Adam sinned, all his posterity, 
according to GooVs sovereign constitution, would he subject to 
sin and death. By the sovereignty of God here spoken of, 
these divines have not intended that God ordained things 
thus without good and sufficient reasons ; or that none of 
these reasons are within the limits of human conjecture. 
But they maintain that God has not seen proper to reveal 
those reasons, and of course that we are not authorized to 
assert that those evils came on Adam's posterity in execu- 
tion of a legal sentence, or in the way of retributive justice 
for their ill desert." — p. 298. 



318 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



The difference, then, between these two classes of theo- 
rists is this — they both hold that the posterity of Adam, in 
consequence of sin, are " subjected to sin and death;" but 
one class assigns, as a reason for the infliction of these 
evils, that the posterity of Adam partook of the ill desert 
of his sin, or that the guilt of it was imputed to them, and 
that the evils were, therefore, inflicted as a punishment ; 
while the other maintains that these evils came on the pos- 
terity of Adam as a consequence of his sin, by a " divine 
constitution or appointment," but that God has not seen 
fit to reveal his reasons for the adoption of this constitu- 
tion. They do not, therefore, feel authorized to adopt the 
imputation theory as furnishing the explanation. It seems 
to be the object of the reviewer to prove that both parties 
come to the same result, both as to the condition of Adam's 
posterity, and the fact that they come into that condition in 
consequence of the sin of Adam. He concludes, finally, 
that the dispute is " solely a dispute about words." 

The policy of Mr. B., in thus referring the offensive 
tenet to a doctrine with which it has no necessary con- 
nection, was probably to divert attention from those doc- 
trines to which it necessarily adheres ; and likewise secure 
to himself the advantage of including in his denial both 
the tenet in question and the theory in which he says it 
had its origin. 

Mr. B. may possibly expect to escape the doctrine that 
non-elect infants are sent to hell, by arguing, that as " in- 
fants have no moral character" they are not subjects of 
punishment or reward, and therefore cannot be consigned 
to that place. But he would be met at this point by an- 
other difficulty. The fact of their having " no moral cha- 
racter" would as certainly exclude them from heaven as 
from hell. There would be this bar to their reception 
there, in addition to the circumstance of their not being 
elected to salvation. And, still worse, this doctrine would 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 319 

exclude elect infants from heaven as certainly as the non- 
elect ; for none can enter heaven without a moral cha- 
racter. From that place all but the holy are excluded. 
So that some other place or places than heaven and hell 
must be found for both classes, or they must be annihi- 
lated, which Mr. Finney says might be done without in- 
justice. 

It is impossible to give Calvinism any modification 
which does not involve a denial of the salvation of all who 
die in infancy. 

Mr. B. very confidently asserts " that in no Presbyte- 
rian church in this country is it maintained to be a fact, 
that infants are actually damned." In answer to this, 
supposing him to be correctly informed, it might be re- 
marked, that to hold a doctrine, and to maintain it, or 
announce it publicly, are not the same thing at the present 
day. There may be some who hold it, and yet lay it 
aside among their " sectarian peculiarities," and consider 
it a very " unprofitable part of popular instruction." 
Whether this be the case or not, we frequently meet with 
expressions in our reading which not only involve, as a 
logical consequence, the insecurity of some who die in 
infancy, but indicate very strikingly that the mind of the 
writer is far from being assured that all who die in infancy 
are saved. In a pamphlet on " Native Depravity," by the 
Rev. Gardiner Spring, pastor of the Brick Presbyterian 
Church in the city of New-York, may be found the fol- 
lowing language : — 

" The sentiment has often been imputed to the advo- 
cates of native depravity, that they do not believe in the sal- 
vation of infants. But nothing is more false or unjust than 
this imputation. That the grace of God, through Jesus 
Christ, rescues all infants from perdition, I do not deny, 
but fondly hope ; that it rescues untold millions I have not 
a doubt. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou 



320 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



perfected praise. Children are the heritage of the Lord, and 
the fruit of the womb is his reward. But while we say this, 
we also say that God is not bound in justice to save them ; 
and that whether he saves a whole or a part, he saves 
them as a matter of mere mercy, through the blood of his 
Son."— p. 52. 

Let us consider this singular passage. It professes to 
resent, as very false and unjust, the imputation that " the 
advocates of native depravity do not believe in the salva- 
tion of infants." But it is not the case, that this is im- 
puted to the advocates of native depravity, as such, for the 
Methodists hold to native depravity, and yet who imputes 
to them the belief that infants are not saved ? It is im- 
puted to Calvinists, not because they believe in native de- 
pravity, but because they believe in the election of a cer- 
tain number to eternal life, before they were born, to the 
exclusion of the rest. Besides, no one imputes to them 
that they do not believe in the salvation of any but that 
they do not believe in the salvation of all infants. Dr. 
S., however, represents the imputation as being that they 
do not believe in the salvation of infants ; so that he mis- 
represents a little in making out the charge of misrep- 
resentation against others. He can easily pronounce 
such an imputation false and unjust, without committing 
himself to the support of the doctrine that all who die in 
infancy are safe. We must, however, accord to him the 
credit of having fabricated the imputation for the pur- 
pose of contradicting it ; and at the same time seeming to 
contradict the imputation which is actually urged against 
them. But mark how he treats the supposition that the 
grace of God rescues all infants from perdition. He does 
not deny it, but fondly hopes that it is the case. This, then, 
is the amount of his confidence when the proposition in- 
cludes all infants. When it includes a part only, see how 
he brightens up ! That the grace of God rescues untold 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 321 

millions he has not a doubt. But how is it, that with re- 
spect to the salvation of some infants, he merely declines a 
denial, and but fondly hopes, while with respect to the 
case of others he has the fullest assurance ? Why does he 
not entertain the same delightful confidence respecting all 
infants ? His theory will solve these questions. Some of those 
infants are elect, and others are not. And lest his readers 
should be misled by his fond hopes in behalf of the non- 
elect, he notifies them that, whether God saves the whole 
or a part, he is not bound in justice to save them ; which 
implies that he might damn them without injustice. If 
Dr. S. does not believe in the damnation of some infants, 
he certainly walks very near the boundary winch divides 
a full belief in this doctrine from uncertainty respecting it ; 
and we are quite inclined to think that we might impute 
to him that he does not confidently believe in the salvation 
of all infants, without either falsehood or injustice. But 
we have not done with this subject. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

Mr. Barnes admits, though with regret, that a few have 
held the doctrine that infants may be lost. He mentions 
Dr. Gill and Dr. Tvvisse as of this number. He might 
with equal propriety have mentioned Calvin in this con- 
nection, after whom his favourite system is named. Per- 
haps it was more in accordance with his feelings of re- 
gret to throw him among the "few others." The following 
passage is sufficient to declare Calvin's opinion on the sub- 
ject : — " How came it to pass that the fall of Adam, inde- 
pendent of any remedy, should involve so many nations, 

14* 



322 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



with their infant children, in eternal death ? But such was 
the will of God ! ! It was a horrible decree, I confess ; but 
no one can deny that God foreknew the future state of man 
before he created him ; and that he did foreknow it, because 
it teas appointed by his own decree" — Calvin's Institutes, 
b. iii, chap, xxiii, sect. 6. 

There is, also, an avowal of this horrible doctrine in a 
recent number of the New-York Observer, no less explicit 
than that which we have just recorded. 

A writer in the " Christian Review" advanced the fol- 
lowing argument on the subject of war : — 

" Look at an army in the hour of battle. See attacks 
and retreats, battalions annihilated, commanders falling, 
.shouts of onset, groans of death, horses trampling the 
fallen, limbs flying in the air, suffocating smoke, thunder- 
ing artillery, thousands smarting in the agony of death, and 
none to administer a cup of water. Do the precepts of 
Christianity authorize such a scene ? Would such an ex- 
hibition ever grow out of its legitimate effects ?" 

To this the editor of the Observer replied : — " A scene 
far more awful than this is certainly authorized by Chris- 
tianity, and will ' grow out of its legitimate effects a 
scene which will call to suffering, not only the hardy sol- 
dier, but human beings of every age, sex, and condition — 
male and female, the lame, the sick, the blind, the deaf, 
the aged, and the infant. Even the grave shall be no hid- 
ing place from its demands. The dust shall be gathered 
up, and the mummy reanimated, and the power of feeling 
pain shall be restored to them. And they shall be swept 
off, millions on millions, into the lake of fire, burning with 
brimstone, where their worm shall not die, neither shall 
their fire be quenched, but the smoke of their torment shall 
ascend up for ever and ever. And no one engaged in 
bringing this to pass will shrink from this task, but ail will 
perform their appointed parts with alacrity, and shout over 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 323 

the sight of this vast destruction, Hallelujah, for the Lord 
God omnipotent reigneth ! Neither, while thus engaged, 
will they be impelled by any sinful passion, nor will any 
unholy thought or feeling have place in their hearts ; but 
they will be filled with the very spirit of their most kind 
and merciful Master, and be guided in every act by the 
mind which was also in him. 

" That Christianity sanctions, and will bring on such a 
scene as this, the reviewer, we doubt not, most fully be- 
lieves. Why, then, should he think that Christianity, from 
its very nature, cannot sanction the infliction of the suffer- 
ings which he describes on those who come upon us for 
the purpose of devastation and murder, and can be re- 
strained in no other way from accomplishing their horrid 
object? 5 '— New -York Observer, Sept. 15, 1838. 

The editors of the Christian Advocate and Journal 
called attention to this open declaration of a doctrine, 
which, we are told, no Calvinists of the present day hold or 
maintain. The editor of the Observer saw that he had 
committed himself, and made an effort to extricate him- 
self from his unhappy position. But how? He could 
not deny that he had affirmed the damnation of infants. 
He had not only included in the destruction " human 
beings of every age," but specified " the infant," placing 
it in contrast with "the aged." Nor could he deny 
that the " suffering " predicated was damnation. For 
he had said that the grave should be " no hiding place" 
from it, whereas the grave is a hiding place from suffering 
to all who are saved. He had said, moreover, that they 
should " be swept off, millions on millions, into the lake 
of fire, burning with brimstone," &c. He does not pretend 
to deny that he had asserted the damnation of infants. In 
what way, then, does he attempt to work out his deliver- 
ance ? By preposterously trifling with the meaning of 
the term infant. But the entire reply of the Observer is 



324 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



worthy of a permanent record, as belonging to the history 
of this controversy. 

" Damnation of infants. — The editor of the Christian 
Advocate thinks we have avowed an uncomfortable doc- 
trine on this subject ; but very possibly he holds the same 
doctrine as much as we do. What does he understand by 
the word ' infant V Webster defines it, 4 the first period 
of life, beginning at birth,' — not telling us when it ends. 
He adds that, in law, infancy extends to the age of twenty- 
one. Some writers make infancy extend to the age of seven, 
childhood from seven to fourteen, &c. Theologians scold 
or speculate about * infant damnation,' but do not stop to 
think whether they have any meaning in particular or not ; 
and generally they have none, except that those on the 
other side are awful heretics. If the editor of the Advo- 
cate will define the term, and then consider the question, 
perhaps he will agree with us ; and perhaps we shall 
amend our phraseology." — N. Y. Observer, Oct. 26, 1838. 

It is clearly apparent to us, whatever impression may 
be made on the minds of others, by the answer, that he 
has no notion of giving up the doctrine asserted. On 
the contrary, he intimates, that if the editor of the Ad- 
vocate will define the term " infant," and then consider 
the question, — if he will only make his definition wide 
enough to include the ages of which moral accountability 
may be undeniably predicated — if, for instance, he will 
adopt the definition which extends infancy to twenty-one 
years of age, " possibly," and " perhaps," he will hold the 
same doctrine, and agree with the editor of the Observer. 
So that the agreement is to be brought about, not by a de- 
nial of this doctrine on the part of the Observer, but by an 
admission of it on the part of the Advocate. 

If the editors of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
and those for whom they write, held the doctrine of " in- 
fant damnation" and yet desired to escape the odium of it, 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



325 



they would probably be very thankful for this definition. 
It would render the term equivocal, which would be of 
immense advantage. But they have no occasion for it. 
They are satisfied with the signification attached to it by 
theologians of all creeds. There is no term, the theologi- 
cal use of which is more uniform and better understood. 

We would ask what period of life Mr. Leavitt refers to, 
when he says, " As there is nothing that we can do for 
these little ones to fit them for heaven or Mr. Dufheld, 
when he speaks of transferring them " forthwith, as soon 
as they come into the world ;" or Dr. Cox, when he tells 
us that " if Scripture had affirmed the salvation of all in- 
fants, or any class of them under a certain age, the conse- 
quences had been terrible ;" or Dr Spring, when he calls 
them " babes and sucklings ;" or Calvin, when he quali- 
fies the term children by the term infant ? Perhaps these 
men never thought to define the term, and had no mean- 
ing in particular, " except that those on the other side are 
awful heretics." 

We would suggest to the editor of the Observer, that 
while he is engaged in bringing the Methodists over to 
the doctrine of the damnation of infants, he might apply 
the same means, with the same effect, for the purpose of 
bringing the Baptists over to the doctrine of infant baptism. 
Let them only give the term " infant" a definition which 
will include the ages of fourteen, twenty, &c, and they 
will have no right to " scold" or " speculate" on the sub- 
ject, but will be fairly convicted of holding to infant bap- 
tism " as much as we do." 

This reply of the Observer is commended to the notice 
of the reader, as a specimen of the manner in which Cal- 
vinists frequently attempt to escape from the grasp of their 
opponents. They avail themselves of some far-fetched, 
and often ridiculous, interpretation ; they claim superior 
precision and learning ; and intimate that the objections 



326 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



urged against them have their origin in ignorance, or a 
misconception of the subject. "Whether the readers of 
the Observer are satisfied with the editor's explanation, or 
not, we have no means of ascertaining. We suppose, 
however, that all are satisfied with it, who have intelli- 
gence enough to appreciate its profound erudition. 

These, then, are the results of our inquiries on the sub- 
ject under consideration : — 

1. We have shown, we think, by clear and unanswer- 
able argument, that the doctrine that all infants dying in 
infancy are not saved, is a logical consequence of several 
of the leading tenets of Calvinism. 

2. We find one believer in that system expressing the 
utmost confidence in the salvation of " untold millions," 
but there are others of whom he " fondly hopes" that they 
are saved — he does not deny that this is the case. And 
he cannot go beyond this in a passage written expressly 
for the purpose of vindicating himself from the imputation 
of not believing in the salvation of all infants. 

3. Another declares, that we are left in entire ignorance 
as to the fate of deceased infants — that this is one of the 
secret things which belong to God. He declines, for this 
reason, forming any opinion on the subject, and intimates 
a reluctance to discuss it, affirming that the cause of piety 
can gain nothing from its discussion. 

4. Another not only asserts that we are wholly unin- 
formed respecting the future condition of infants, but 
brings forward a series of grave arguments against the 
supposition that all infants dying in infancy are saved. 

5. Another not only considers that we are in absolute 
ignorance on this point, and argues against the doctrine 
that all infants are saved, but also finds strong presump- 
tions for the damnation of some infants. 

6. While another positively affirms the doctrine that 
infants are swept into the lake of fire and brimstone. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 327 

And all these writers are now living, and are ministers 
of the gospel, or editors of leading periodicals. Three 
of them, Rev. Messrs. Leavitt, Dufheld, and Cox, are 
known as leading New School Calvinists. Of the Rev. 
Dr. Spring, a writer in the Presbyterian, (an Old School 
paper,) says : " And does not Dr. Spring, of New- York, 
one of the wisest men of the age, and once the glory of 
the New School, now stand amazed at the daring strides 
of error ? And has he not, on this account, retired, and 
cast in his lot with the Old School ? And he is still a 
Hopkinsian." The editor of the New- York Observer 
professes to be neutral, but his sympathies are obviously 
with the New School party, and the Old School papers so 
understand him. 

We therefore conclude that we are fully justified in 
saying, that the New School party carry their Calvinism 
so far as to involve in doubt the doctrine that all who die 
in infancy are saved. 

Indeed the single position that God has made no reve- 
lation on the subject of the future destiny of deceased in- 
fants is very suspicious, especially in view of the Saviour's 
declaration, " SufTer little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God," 
Luke xviii, 16, a declaration quoted by the Westminster 
Confession of Faith to prove the salvation of elect infants. 
If this position be true, no mother has a right to conclude 
that her departed infant has gone to heaven. Nor can the 
minister who believes it afford her this consolation. He 
may say he does not believe that it is damned, but then he 
means only that he is in absolute ignorance on the subject, 
and therefore has no right to believe either way. We 
would also suggest whether this position does not entirely 
destroy the basis of infant baptism. How can ministers 
baptize infants, when they are in entire ignorance respect- 
ing their relations to the kingdom of God ? But they con- 



328 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



tradict themselves grossly. For in the very argument in 
which Mr. Dufheld undertakes to prove our entire igno- 
rance of the case of infants, he tells us that the children 
of believers are included in the covenant of grace. 

We are forcibly reminded by this doctrine of the an- 
swer of the chief priests and elders to our Saviour, when 
he asked them whether the baptism of John was " from 
heaven, or of men." " They reasoned with themselves, say- 
ing, If we shall say from heaven, he will say, Why then be- 
lieved ye him not ? But if we say of men, all the people 
will stone us, for they be persuaded that John was a pro- 
phet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence 
it was." The advocates of the Calvinistic system per- 
ceive that if they admit that all infants dying in infancy 
are safe, they destroy the foundation of their system. If 
they admit the damnation of some infants, they arouse 
against it one of the most powerful feelings of humanity. 
They therefore beg to be excused from forming any 
opinion on the subject. They have no information, and 
so had better have no theory. They answer, " We can- 
not tell." 

The arguments used against the doctrine of Methodism, 
respecting the salvation of infants, are too futile for refuta- 
tion ; but they serve to conclusively show the sentiments 
of those who employ them. Who could believe a doc- 
trine which he supposes chargeable with such destructive 
tendencies ? " If this doctrine were generally and reve- 
rently received, it would lead to terrible consequences — 
even to infanticide. Parents would probably put their 
children to death, to secure their salvation." Hear this, 
ye Arminians, and wonder how it is that you have not 
murdered all your children, and been hung and damned, 
long since ! ! 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



329 



CHAPTER XXX. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

The evidence adduced to prove that the teachers of 
New Divinity are Calvinists, must be more than sufficient 
to convince our readers that this is the case. W e now 
propose to illustrate the manner in which they endeavour 
to reconcile the restrictive doctrines of Calvinism with the 
offers of a free salvation, &c. This part of the argument 
has been, to some extent, anticipated, but its importance 
claims for it a more particular and extensive conside- 
ration. 

Foremost among the devices for this purpose stands the 
distinction of ability into natural and moral. The manner 
in which it is applied, has been already several times 
pointed out. It is affirmed, that all have a natural ability 
to repent and believe the gospel, but that all have not the 
moral ability. The natural ability is relied on as justify- 
ing the offer of salvation to all, the universal obligation to 
repentance and faith, and the condemnation and eternal 
punishment of all who do not repent, believe, and obey the 
gospel ; while the moral inability secures the doctrines of 
Calvinism. The grace of God is absolutely necessary to 
overcome this inability, and that grace is imparted to none 
but the elect. 

A very striking exemplification of the position which 
we have assumed, respecting the use of this distinction, is 
furnished by Ryland's edition of the Life of the Rev. An- 
drew Fuller, an eminent minister of the Baptist persuasion 
in England, who was one of the warmest and ablest advo- 
cates of modern Calvinism. He was educated in that 
denomination, and very early imbibed the Calvinistic faith. 
Very soon after his conversion, he became engaged in 



330 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



doctrinal disputes. The question of man's ability to obey 
God seems to have created his first difficulties, and started 
his investigations. A short time after his baptism, and 
uniting in church fellowship with the Baptists, an affair 
occurred which brought it fairly before him. The cir- 
cumstances are related by himself. " One of the members 
having been guilty of drinking to excess, I was the first 
who knew of it. I immediately went and talked to him, 
as well as I could, on the evil of his conduct. His an- 
swer was, he could not keep himself, and that though I 
bore so hard on him, I was not my own keeper. At this 
I felt indignant, considering it as a bad excuse. I there- 
fore told him that he could keep himself from such sins as 
these, and that his way of talking was merely to excuse 
what was inexcusable. I knew not what else to say at 
that time, yet the idea of arrogating to be my own keeper 
seemed too much. He however was offended, and told 
me that I was young, and did not know the deceitfulness 
of my own heart. Well, I went and told my pastor, who 
highly commended me, and said we could keep ourselves 
from open sins. We had no power, he observed, to do 
things spiritually good ; but as to outward acts, we had 
power both to obey the will of God and to disobey it. 

" The business soon came before the church, and the 
offender was unanimously excluded ; the excuse which 
he had made, too, was considered by all, I believe, as an 
aggravation of his offence. But, this affair being disposed 
of, the abstract question, of the power of sinful men to do 
the will of God, and to keep themselves from sin, was taken 
up by some of the leading members of the Church. They 
readily excused me, as being a babe in religion ; but 
thought the pastor ought to have known better, and to 
have been able to answer the offender, without betraying 
the truth. They alleged, that the greatest and best of 
characters, as recorded in Scripture, never arrogated to 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 331 

themselves the power of keeping themselves from evil, but 
constantly prayed for keeping grace ; that, were it not for 
the restraining goodness and constraining grace of God, 
earth would be a hell, and the best of men incarnate 
devils. In short, that, though we are altogether blame- 
worthy for our evil propensities, yet if they were restrained 
or conquered, it was altogether to be ascribed to God, and 
not to us. 

" On the other hand, the pastor distinguished between 
internal and external power. He allowed that men had no 
power of themselves to perform any thing spiritually good ; 
but contended that they could yield external obedience, 
and keep themselves from open acts of sin. In proof of 
this, he alleged a great number of Scripture exhortations; 
asking, if we had no power to comply with them, why 
they were given us. The opponents did not deny our 
being exhorted to do good, and to avoid evil, nor that it 
was our duty to do both, and our sin to act otherwise ; 
but they denied that this implied our being sufficient of 
ourselves to do any thing, even to think a good thought. 

" In these disputes, I continued for some time on the 
side of my pastor ; but, after a few months, I felt difficul- 
ties on the subject, which I could not answer, and which 
rendered me unhappy. I perceived that some kind of 
power was necessary to render us accountable beings. If 
we were like stocks or stones, or literally dead, like men 
in a burying ground, we could with no more propriety 
than they be commanded to perform any duty. If we 
were mere machines, there could be no sin chargeable 
upon us. Yet, on the other hand, the Scriptures expressly 
affirm that ' the way of man is not in himself,' and repre- 
sent the godly as crying to Heaven for preservation from 
evil, ascribing all the good that was in them to Him who 
worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure. 
I prayed much, and laboured hard to solve this difficulty 



332 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



This controversy eventuated in a separation between 
the pastor and the church. The doctrine of ability con- 
tinued to be the absorbing topic with Mr. Fuller ; and a 
short time afterward he met with a distinction in reading 
a work of Dr. Gill, between the power of the hand and 
the power of the heart. He eagerly seized upon it, as 
furnishing the all-important desideratum. He says, "This, 
(thought I,) is the clew to our dispute. Every man has 
it in the power of his hand to do good, and abstain from 
evil ; and this is it which makes us accountable beings. 
We can do, or forbear to do this or that, if we have a 
mind ; but many have not a mind, and none would have 
such a mind, but for the restraining goodness or constrain- 
ing grace of God. We have it in the power of our hands 
to do good, but we are disposed to do evil ; and so to do 
good is not naturally in the power of our hearts." 

About the time of his conversion and entrance into the 
ministry, the Calvinistic churches in England were agi- 
tated by the question, " Whether it be the duty of all men, 
to whom the gospel is published, to repent and believe the 
gospel." This was called the " modern question." 
That such a question should ever divide ministers of the 
gospel seems strange enough. Writers engaged warmly 
on both sides. 

Those who wrote on the negative side seem to have 
argued from the principles of Calvinism, which amply and 
firmly sustained them ; showing that inasmuch as the un- 
regenerate or reprobate have no power to repent or believe 
the gospel, and as God had not intended or provided for 
their salvation, but predestinated their destruction, it can- 
not be their duty to repent and believe ; that they have no 
warrant to believe in Christ, as he did not redeem them ; 
that for God to require them to believe in Christ as their 
Saviour, would be to require them to believe a lie in order 
to salvation ; and then, as there is no salvation for them, 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



333 



to damn them at all events. Those who espoused the 
affirmative argued from the word of God, which was un- 
doubtedly on their side. But the task devolved on them 
of reconciling the obligation of all men to repent and be- 
lieve with the partial tenets of their creed. Here they 
were compelled to labour with unavailing toil. As a mat- 
ter of course, the manner of addressing sinners from the 
pulpit, observed by these preachers, was greatly influenced 
by the views which they respectively entertained on this 
question. 

Those who carried out the principles of Calvinism to 
their legitimate consequences were " restrained from imi- 
tating our Lord and his apostles, in calling sinners to re- 
pent and believe the gospel." The distinctions which 
they made between internal and external power — be- 
tween the power of the hand and the power of the heart 
— enabled them to address, to some extent, the consciences 
of sinners — to admonish them to abstain from open and 
flagrant wickedness, and attend on the means of grace, 
and act like orderly citizens ; but they could say nothing 
to them from the pulpit in the way of warning them to flee 
from the wrath to come, or inviting them to apply to Christ 
for salvation. 

It is obvious that these distinctions, instead of relieving 
Calvinism of its difficulties, serve only to render them 
more fearfully visible. While they separate obedience to 
that part of the law of God which relates to outward acts, 
by which alone human society is directly benefited or in- 
jured, from inward, spiritual principle, they lead to the 
conclusion, that the utmost efforts of which the non-elect 
are capable must be utterly unavailing to their salvation. 
These outcasts may so far conform to the divine law as 
to relieve the elect from the necessity of living in the 
midst of an openly vicious and persecuting population, 
help them to build churches, support ministers, acquire 



334 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



property, and may become in all respects the more humble 
servants of the elect ; but they cannot escape the damna- 
tion of hell. 

Mr. Fuller was at this time a decided and consistent 
Calvinist ; and although his mind had become somewhat 
agitated and unsettled by the disputes in which he had 
been involved, he did not, durst not, for some years, address 
an invitation to the unconverted to come to Jesus. He 
had very little to say to the unconverted ; at least, nothing 
in a way of exhortation to things spiritually good or cer- 
tainly connected with salvation. He read some authors, 
who, while they maintained the doctrines of election and 
predestination, nevertheless held with the free offer of 
salvation to sinners without distinction, and dealt in free 
invitations to sinners to come to Christ and be saved — - 
Bunyan, for instance, and all the old writers of the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries, that came in his way. 
But the consistency of these invitations with personal elec- 
tion he could not understand. These were things which 
he could not then reconcile. He supposed that Bunyan, 
though a great and good man, was not so clear in his 
views of the doctrines of the gospel as the writers who 
succeeded him. He perceived that the Scriptures abound- 
ed with exhortations and invitations to sinners ; but he 
supposed there must be two kinds of holiness — one of 
which was possessed by man in innocence, and was bind- 
ing on all his posterity — the other derived from Christ, 
and binding only on his people. The exhortations to re- 
pentance and faith, addressed in the New Testament to 
the unconverted, he supposed to refer only to such exter- 
nal repentance and faith as were within their power, and 
might be complied with without the grace of God. 

Notwithstanding the plausibility with which these dis- 
tinctions on the subject of power first presented themselves 
to the mind of Mr. Fuller, he did not long continue satis- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



335 



fied with them ; and no wonder. They show to what 
desperate subterfuges Calvinism compels its votaries. 
He began to doubt whether he had the truth respecting 
this subject : — " I perceived," says he, " that the will of 
God was not confined to mere outward actions, but ex- 
tended to the inmost thoughts and intents of the heart. 
The distinction of duties therefore into internal and exter- 
nal, and making the latter only concern the unregenerate, 
wore a suspicious appearance. But as I perceived this 
reasoning would affect the whole tenor of my preaching, 
I moved on with slow and trembling steps ; and, having 
to feel my way out of a labyrinth, I was a long time ere I 
was satisfied." 

Shortly after this period he visited London, where he 
met with a pamphlet which revived all his doubts as to 
the correctness of his theory, both with respect to the 
duty of sinners, and of ministers in addressing them. 
This pamphlet was written by Dr. Abraham Taylor, of 
London, on the affirmative side of the modern question. 
" I had never (says Mr. Fuller) seen any thing relative to 
this controversy before, although the subject, as I have 
stated, had occupied my thoughts. I was but little im- 
pressed by his reasonings till he came to the addresses 
of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, which he 
proved to be addressed to the ungodly, and to mean spi- 
ritual repentance and faith, inasmuch as they were con- 
nected with the remission of sins. This set me fast. I 
read and examined the Scripture passages ; and the more 
I read and thought, the more I doubted the justice of my 
former views." He also, about the same time, met with 
a sermon which increased his difficulties, and he became 
very unhappy. He doubted the correctness of his views 
and his preaching, and yet was not fully convinced of 
their inaccuracy. What he wanted was evidently a more 
satisfactory method of reconciling the obligation of all 



336 



NEW DIVINITY- — CALVINISM. 



men to repent and believe the gospel, and the free offer 
of salvation to sinners, with the foreordination of all events, 
and the personal unconditional election of a part of man- 
kind to eternal life, to the absolute exclusion of all the 
rest. 

Very opportunely, at this most critical juncture, our be- 
wildered theologian met with the distinction of ability into 
natural and moral, and the theory of natural ability and 
moral inability. This relieved him. For, by attributing 
to the sinner a natural or physical ability, he felt himself 
justified in calling on sinners to repent and believe. While 
by the doctrine of a moral inability, which nothing but the 
special and distinguishing grace of God can remove, he 
secured his darling Calvinism. This grace is given to 
none but the elect, so that, notwithstanding the natural 
ability, none but the elect can be saved. He particularly 
mentions that his change of views on duty and ability 
never abated his zeal for Calvinism, but, in some respects, 
increased it. He declares that he never had any predi- 
lections for Arminianism ; which appeared to him to as- 
cribe the difference between one sinner and another, not 
to the effectual grace of God, but to the good improvement 
made of grace given us in common with others. 

The source to which Mr. F. was indebted for this won- 
derful and invaluable discovery — this solution of all his 
difficulties — was Dr. Jonathan Edwards' Treatise on the 
Will ; to whom, it would seem, belongs the honour of 
elaborating the subject of power to these sublimated forms 
of exhibition. This work appears to have been working, 
at that time, most wonderful effects on the minds of trans- 
atlantic theologians. It was recommended to Mr. Fuller 
by the Rev. Mr. Hall of Arnsby. 

The case of Mr. Fuller has been introduced, at length, 
because it clearly illustrates and confirms the position de- 
signed to be established ; and presents the interesting 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 337 

spectacle of a great and honest mind struggling with the 
difficulties of that perplexing creed to which he was de- 
voted. And, no doubt, we have presented in this example 
the process of hundreds of minds, in advancing from the 
same starting point to the same conclusions. The Rev, 
Mr. Ryland, the author of these memoirs, states his own 
experience on this subject in a note : — " The sixty-second 
of Samuel Rutherford's letters was one of the first things 
that put me to a stand on this subject. Closely studying 
Edwards on the Will, and entering into the distinction be- 
tween natural and moral ability, removed the difficulties 
which had once embarrassed my mind. In 1776, I bor* 
rowed of Mr. Newton, of Olney, two sermons on this sub- 
ject by Mr. Smalley, which Brother Sutcliffe afterward 
reprinted from the copy which I transcribed. I well re- 
member lending them to Mr. Hall, of Arnsby, to whom I 
remarked, that I was ready to suspect that this distinction, 
well considered, would lead us to see that the affirmative 
side of the modern question was fully consistent vnth the 
strictest Calvinism. He replied, ( I do not think that.' 
But, I believe, the next time I met him was at a ministers' 
meeting at Kettering, when I found he was fully satisfied 
with the truth of my observations. And in another note 
he says, 4 1 question much if any man can steer clear of 
false Calvinism, on the one hand, and real Arminianism 
on the other, without entering into the distinction between 
natural and moral ability, as it is called.'^ 

The sermons by Mr. Smalley, just referred to, fell into 
our hands several years since. The distinction is thus 
stated and applied by that author : " These two kinds 
of inability, as I hinted, have commonly been distin- 
guished by calling one a natural ability, the other a 
moral ability; which distinction may be briefly stated 
thus — moral inability consists only in the want of a 
heart, or disposition, or will to do a thing, Natural 

15 



338 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



inability, on the other hand, consists in, or arises from, 
want of understanding, bodily strength, opportunity, or 
whatever may prevent our doing a thing when we are 
willing, and strongly enough disposed and inclined to do 
it. Or in fewer words, thus — whatever a man could not 
do if he would , he is under a natural inability of doing. 
But when all the reason why one cannot do a thing is, 
because he does not choose to do it, the inability is only 
of a moral nature. 

" The point of doctrine which I shall insist on from 
these words is this : That none are able to comply with 
the gospel but those who are the subjects of the special 
and effectual grace of God, or those who are made willing 
and do actually comply with it." 

The title of these sermons is, "The Inability of the Sin- 
ner to comply with the Gospel, and his Inexcusable Guilt 
in not complying with it 3 and these two reconciled." 



CHAPTER XXXL 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

The distinction which is the subject of the preceding 
chapter is resorted to by Mr. Barnes, for the same pur- 
pose. In a note to his sermon on " The Way of Salva- 
tion," he remarks : " If God requires more of men than 
in any sense they are able to perform, then, in the practi- 
cal judgment of all men, according to the reason he has 
given them, he is unjust. That there is something which 
makes certain the result that a sinner will not r of himself, 
believe, is the doctrine of the New Testament, John 
v, 40 ; vi, 44. If this be such as in all cases to put it be- 
yond his power to do it, then it frees him from obligation- ; 
if not, he may be urged still to do it. The distinction, 



NEW D I V IN I T Y— C AL V IN I S M, 



339 



then, between natural and moral ability referred to here, 
is not one of mere speculation." This passage plainly in- 
dicates the use of this distinction. Man must be sup- 
posed to have ability " in some sense," or he is u free 
from obligation," and yet there is something which 
" makes certain the result that the sinner will not of him- 
self believe." This want of will on the part of the sinner, 
which something makes certain, is the moral inability, 

Mr. B. frequently asserts the necessity of the special 
agency of the Holy Spirit in order to conversion, In the 
sermon just referred to, he observes : "If the last point 
which I suggested be true, that all are disposed to reject 
the scheme, then it would seem to follow, that if any are 
saved, it will be by the special agency of God," — De- 
fence, p. 27. 

His theory also restricts this indispensable agency to a 
portion of mankind. " If then," he says, " God renews the 
heart by his Holy Spirit — if he begins and carries on the 
work in all that shall be saved, and holds the power of 
doing this over all men, and does not thus incline all to 
come to him, and it be asked, as well it may be, why he 
does not renew and save all — we have only to say, that 
all do not choose to be saved, and will not come to him." 
This is a very convenient solution of the question, why 
God does not exert the influence on all men which he 
does on some. But Mr. B. knew that according to his 
scheme there is a cause beyond the choice of the sinner. 
He holds that none will " come to Christ" and " choose 
to be saved, unless God makes them willing-^— that the re^ 
suk is invariably the expression of the divine decree" Is 
it not remarkable, then, that he should assign as a reason 
why God does not " incline all to come to him," that all 
are not previously inclined ? The reason assigned for 
this special agency, in any case, is, that without it none 
will "choose" and "will" and be inclined to come to 



340 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



Christ ; so that the reason why he inclines some, is given 
as the reason why he does not incline others. 

But he comes to the point at last. " If it be asked 
why the great Sovereign of the world does not constrain 
them to come, and bring all to heaven, I answer, my 
power of reason fails ; my understanding faints, and is 
weary ; and I ask also, why he did not keep by his power 
men and devils from falling, and save the universe from 
sin and sorrow altogether ? Secret things belong to God, 
and I can only say, as God's only-begotten Son said long 
since, ' Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
sight. 5 " 

We are now clearly informed that the special influence 
absolutely necessary to conversion and salvation, is 
vouchsafed to some and withheld from others ; and Mr. 
B. acknowledges his inability to account for the discrimi- 
nation otherwise than by resolving it into the good plea- 
sure of God. Here is the doctrine of the unconditional 
election of some to eternal life. 

He advances the same sentiment in the following note, 
on the words " Whom he will he hardeneth" Rom. ix. " The 
word hardeneth means only to harden in the manner spe- 
cified in the case of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert 
a positive influence, but to leave a sinner to his chosen 
course, and to place him in circumstances where the 
character will be more and more developed. — See note 
John xii, 40. It implies, however, an act of sovereignty 
on the part of God in thus leaving him to his chosen 
course, and in not putting forth that influence by which 
he could be saved from death. Why this is the apostle 
does not state. We should, however, not dispute a fact 
every where prevalent, and should have sufficient confi- 
dence in God to believe that it is in accordance with infi- 
nite wisdom and rectitude." 

We are here expressly informed that it is " a fact every 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 341 

where prevalent" that God, as an " act of sovereignty/' 
leaves some sinners to their " chosen course," and declines 
a putting forth the influence by which they could be saved 
from death ;" and it as clearly implies that there are others 
whom he does not leave to their " chosen course," but 
" puts forth, in their case, the necessary influence." It is 
also intimated that the reason for this discrimination 
is unknown. 

It is also a part of Mr. B.'s system, that God saves men 
in every instance in which he designs to save them, notwith- 
standing their unwillingness. In his note on " Not of him 
that willeth" he remarks, " This does not mean that he 
that becomes a Christian and is saved does not choose 
eternal life, or is not made willing ; or that he is com- 
pelled to enter heaven against his choice. It is true that 
men by nature have no desire of holiness, and do not 
choose eternal life. But the effect of the influence of 
God's Spirit on the heart is to make it 1 willing in the day 
of his power.' " 

The doctrine of this comment is, not only, that without 
the influences of God's Spirit on the heart, " men have 
no desire of holiness and do not choose eternal life," but 
also, that the effect of the influence of the Spirit is to 
make willing those who are unwilling, True, he cautions 
against the supposition that men become Christians with- 
out choosing, or that they are compelled against their 
choice. But if they choose, it is, according to his theory, 
because they are made to choose — because they are 
" made willing." If they are not " compelled against 
their choice" it is because their choice itself is compelled 
in the prescribed direction. He tells us in his sermon 
that " the Spirit of God acts on the will," — p. 28. 

As this distinction between being made willing, and 
being compelled against the will, is deemed of great im- 
portance in Calvinistic theology, and as some of our 



342 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



readers may not be familiar with it y we will present an 
illustration by a Calvinistic writer, the Rev. Pharcellus 
Church, of the Baptist persuasion. It occurs in his 
" Prize Essay on Religious Dissensions." 

w If a man slides from the edge of a precipice, and 
nothing intercepts his course, there is a natural necessity 
that he should fall to the bottom. However much he 
might choose to stop, it would be in vain. Gravity is a 
force over which the will could have no control under 
such circumstances. 

" But suppose the man were to rise at midnight, enter 
the dwelling of a neighbour, massacre him, and then rob 
and burn his house ; and suppose the motive influencing 
him to so foul a deed depended upon an assemblage of 
incidents and circumstances which had been operating 
from his childhood, and over which he had no more con- 
trol than over the force of gravitation in his fall from the 
precipice ; where would be the difference in the two 
cases ? Why, there would be this important difference-, 
that the force of gravity would not conquer his desire not to 
fall, while the incidents, and circumstances which gave 
strength to the motive leading him to comniit the murder, 
would overcome his desire not to commit it. In the one 
case, he would be forced against his will, and in the other 
his will would be led captive." — p. 143. 

It is by the magic influence of the distinction, which 
this writer so clearly illustrates, that they are enabled to 
hold and affirm that men are " made willing'' — are com- 
pelled to become Christians, and yet are not compelled 
against their choice , but choose to become Christians. 
Their wills are " led captive." 

Here then is. a basis broad enough to sustain the entire 
fabric of Calvinism, notwithstanding its appendage of 
" natural ability." The special agency of God is neces-* 
^ary to the salvation of a sinner, That agency is vouch-* 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



343 



safed to some and not to others, — and those to whom it is 
granted it makes vnlling to do whatever is necessary to 
salvation. 

On this subject Mr. Duffield remarks, "Now it is by 
the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the Father and 
the Son, and whom the Son giveth to vjhomsoever he will) 
that a connection is established between him and the 
guilty soul of man." — p. 348. 

And in describing the progress and result of the Spirit's 
operations on the heart of the sinner, he tells us, that 
" object after object, truth after truth, motive after motive, 
are presented. Reiterated appeals are made to the con- 
science and the heart, and eventually, when he is pleased 
in sovereign mercy to subdue, one and another believe, and 
are made willing to forsake their sins. They never would 
have done so, but for such a procedure of grace on the 
part of God."— p. 484. 

We kave the views of Dr. Beecher in the following 
passages : " The doctrine of the moral impotency of man 
is not inconsistent with any other of the doctrines of 
the Bible. It is not inconsistent with the doctrine of our 
entire and absolute dependance for regeneration on the 
special influence of the Holy Spirit ; for, while it includes 
a natural ability to obedience, as the ground of obligation, 
it teaches the certainty of its obstinate perversion, crea- 
ting in point of fact a necessity of the Holy Ghost to 
renew, as real and as great as if the impediment were a 
natural impossibility." — Views in Theology, p. 118. 

Compare the foregoing with the following: "The ques- 
tion, as we have said, is not a question of possible or im- 
possible, but a question of FACT, as to the manner in 
which God does actually call effectually sinners into his 
kingdom — a question of wisdom and goodness in doing 
what is best in the best manner. 

" I have no sympathy for the opinion that it depends 



344 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



on sinners whether they be regenerated or not in the day 
of his power ; or that God does all he can, and leaves the 
event of submission or not to rebel man," &c. — p. 209. 

The reason assigned by Mr. Lord, the New- York 
author of " Views in Theology," why " men are not led 
earlier than they are to the exercise of right affections, 
inasmuch as the same motives are often previously urged 
in the same manner on their sensibilities," is, that " the 
commandment has never been brought home to their sen- 
sibilities, by the higher influences of the Spirit." — Yol. 3, 
No. 11, p. 294. 

A writer in the Quarterly Christian Spectator gives 
a most startling exhibition of this feature of the New 
School theological system, in a " Review of Dr. Ty- 
ler's Strictures on the Christian Spectator." We have 
there the appalling declaration, that " there may be 
acts requisite on the part of the sinner, without which > 
renewing grace will never be exerted ; and yet that 
grace may not be pledged to accompany those acts in any 
instance." The Avriter adds, " It was thus we stated the 
case in our concluding number. We there dwelt at length 
on that most alarming fact to impenitent sinners, that the 
intervention of the Holy Spirit is in no instance pledged 
to any act of theirs ; that there is at best but a bare i per- 
adventure' that God will give them repentance.' Nor is 
this inconsistent with saying that sinners have something 
to do in order to be saved."— Vol. 2, No, 1> p. 156, 

It is not common for the New School writers to present 
the subject in this light. They generally teach that the 
required acts are invariably connected with salvation ; 
relying, for the safety of Calvinism, on the supposition 
that none will ever perform the exercises required, but 
the elect. We are indebted for this disclosure to an. 
attempt to reconcile Calvinism with the proper condi^ 
tionality of salvation.. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 345 

The reader is now fully apprized of one of the securi- 
ties by which Calvinism is guarded, while salvation is 
offered to all, and the ability and obligation of elect and 
non-elect, to repent and believe, are strenuously inculcated. 

Plausible as this theory of natural ability and moral in- 
ability may appear at first sight, it is liable to fatal excep- 
tions. 

It fails to answer the end designed by those who resort 
to it. It does not remove the difficulty for which it is in- 
tended. It is utterly inefficient, except for the purpose of 
temporary delusion. It may secure Calvinism effectually ; 
but it does not furnish solid ground on which to base the 
general invitations of the gospel, and to proclaim a free 
salvation. 

Of what advantage is it for me to possess a natural 
ability to meet the requirements of the gospel, if, at the 
same time, I am subject to a moral inability which ren- 
ders me absolutely dependant on the special influence of 
the Holy Spirit for regeneration ; so that it does not de- 
pend on myself whether I am regenerated or not ; and God 
has decreed to withhold that influence from me. So far 
as my prospect of salvation is concerned, I might as well 
be subject to a natural inability to comply with these re- 
quirements. Nothing is gained by this theory, over that 
which affirms an entire and unqualified inability, on the 
part of the unregenerate, to do any thing toward their sal- 
vation except a delusive and tantalizing phraseology. The 
man who offers salvation to all, on this theory, believes, at 
the same time, that the repentance and salvation of any 
depend on the vouchsafement of an influence which God 
has determined to withhold from a great portion of out 
race. 

Neither does this theory vindicate the divine govern- 
ment in requiring universal repentance and faith, and pun- 
ishing the impenitent and unbelieving. If it would be just 

15* 



346 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



for God to demand repentance and faith under these cir- 
cumstances, it would be equally just in case the inability 
were natural. And the infliction of punishment would be- 
equally just in both cases. The attempt to justify the pun- 
ishment of the unregenerate on the ground that he pos- 
sesses a " kind of ability," while another kind, wholly in- 
dispensable, and for which he is dependant on God, is de- 
signedly withheld from him, is grossly absurd. It would 
not be more absurd to require an idiot to compose and de- 
liver an eloquent oration, and then punish him severely 
for the failure ; and undertake to justify the requisition and 
the punishment, on the ground that he possesses a kind 
or kinds of ability — that he possesses corporeal and moral 
ability — the organs of speech and the faculty and power 
of willing, and that all that is wanting is the intellectual 
ability. It would be as reasonable to require a man to 
distinguish objects amid total darkness, and punish him 
on the ground that he possesses the organs of vision. There 
is something necessary which the sinner is supposed to 
possess ; but there is something else, equally indispensa- 
ble which he does not possess — which God alone can im- 
part, and yet purposely withholds. The Egyptians are 
pronounced tyrants, because they compelled the Hebrews 
to make bricks without the requisite quantity of straw ; 
they did not cut off the hands or put out the eyes of the 
Hebrews, and then require the full quantity of bricks. 
They merely withheld one necessary article. And w« 
now ask if it will be contended that the straw was of more 
importance in the manufacture of bricks, than the influences 
of the Holy Spirit to repentance and faith ; that while 
there was execrable injustice in the former case, it is per- 
fectly just to withhold those influences, and yet require the 
exercises for which they are absolutely indispensable ? 
It is supposed that the government of God is sufficiently 
vindicated by the consideration that the inability of the sm^ 



NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 347 

ner is moral. One writer makes use of this short argument : 
" moral and therefore criminal." The conclusiveness of 
this argument will depend altogether on the meaning at- 
tached to the term moral. If it signify that the inability 
or unwillingness is strictly voluntary, the inference is cor- 
rect ; but then there will be this difficulty, that according to 
the system which we oppose, the inability is not moral in 
the sense of voluntary. The ability or willingness, which 
is its opposite, is supposed to depend, at any imaginable 
period of the sinner's existence, on the influences of the 
Holy Spirit, and those influences have never been, and 
never will be imparted to any but the elect. We can 
easily see how it would be criminal in a man to starve him- 
self to death, when he could honestly obtain plenty of food ; 
but the case would be altered if his starvation were owing 
to his utter inability to procure it. In the one case he 
would be pronounced guilty of suicide, in the other an 
object of pity. 

The theory under review has to encounter this philoso- 
phical difficulty, admitting for a moment, that the distinc- 
tion on which it is founded is correct. The acts required 
of the sinner are moral acts, and therefore require moral 
power, just as lifting a weight requires muscular power. 
But the power required by the sinner happens to be that 
of which he is confessedly and helplessly destitute. So 
that it may be as reasonably required of him to remove a 
mountain, or build a house, by argumentation, as to repent 
and believe in his present circumstances. 

Again : this theory involves an absolute contradiction. 
It represents men as possessing a real ability, and yet 
subject to a real inability, with respect to the same thing 
at the same time. It is quite possible for a man to possess 
ability to do one thing, and yet, at the same time, be 
wholly unable to perform another ; or to be able to per- 
form a certain thing at one time, and unable to perform it 



348 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

at another time. But to be both able and unable, with refer- 
ence to the same thing, and at the same time, is impos- 
sible. If this scheme of ability does not express a contra- 
diction, a contradiction is impossible. 



CHAPTER XXXIL 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

Hitherto, we have confined our argument on the dis- 
tinction of ability into natural and moral, to the use to 
which it is applied. But as it is made the basis of a per- 
nicious system of doctrines, and relied on to effect an 
apparent reconciliation between tenets which have no 
affinities for each other, we may render some service to 
the cause of truth by examining the distinction itself. 

We do not object to distinguishing power into kinds. 
This is frequently done with propriety and advantage. 
Our constitutional faculties are distinguished into corpo- 
real or physical, intellectual, and moral. Each class of 
faculties is supposed to possess its own peculiar energy, 
and hence we have physical, intellectual, and moral 
power. But the propriety of distinguishing power into 
natural and moral is more than doubtful ; because these 
faculties are all natural, and the power pertaining to one 
class is as much natural as that which pertains to any 
other class. The power may be moral, but it does not 
follow that it is not natural. It is both natural and moral, 
and not natural in contradistinction to moral. We may, 
with as much reason, place natural and intellectual power 
in contradistinction to each other, as natural and moral 
power. 

If the term " moral" were used, in this instance, in the 
sense of supernatural, there would be a real distinction 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 349 

between natural and moral power. But this is not the 
sense in which it is used. And, even if it were, our New 
School brethren would be chargeable with the inconsist- 
ency of maintaining, that man has natural ability to accom- 
plish that for which supernatural ability is indispensable. 

And further, if the term moral in this distinction were 
used in the sense of supernatural, the distinction would 
respect, not the kinds, but the sources of power. All the 
kinds of power with which we are acquainted, are physi- 
cal or corporeal, intellectual, and moral. These kinds are 
all natural to man ; and yet the physical, or intellectual, 
or moral power, by which he performs particular actions, 
may not be natural to him. For instance, the prophets 
and apostles had intellectual power naturally ; but had 
they naturally the power to conceive and utter those infal- 
lible oracles by which we are required to regulate our faith 
and practice ? Certainly not. Samson had naturally 
physical or corporeal power, but that he had naturally the 
power necessary to perform those astonishing feats ascribed 
to him, is doubtful. The history plainly indicates that it 
was supernatural — given to him by God for the special 
purposes for which it was exerted. u When the Philis- 
tines shouted against him, the Spirit of the Lord came 
mightily upon him ; and the cords that were upon his arms 
became as flax that was burned with fire, and his bands 
loosed from off his hands. And he found a new jaw-bone 
of an ass, and put forth his hand and took it, and slew a 
thousand men therewith." Before he displaced the pillars 
of his prison-house, and crushed beneath the falling fabric 
himself and the lords of the Philistines, he " called on the 
Lord, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, 
and strengthen me. I pray thee, only this once, O God, 
that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my 
two eyes." The connection between his strength and 
44 the seven locks of his head," shows that his strength 



350 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



was supernatural. This connection was not natural ; — it 
was arbitrary ; established by God for purposes similar to 
those for which the Saviour anointed the eyes of the blind 
man with clay and spittle. - 

When, therefore, the New School theologians use the 
word natural to designate a " kind of power," and identify 
natural power, as a kind, with physical and intellectual 
power, in opposition to moral power, they most egregiously 
misapply the term ; since moral power is just as much na- 
tural as any other kind ; while the physical and intellectual 
power necessary to the performance of certain actions, 
may not be natural, as in the cases specified. The terms 
" natural power" and " supernatural power" do not repre- 
sent particular kinds of power. They simply indicate the 
sources of power — whether it belongs to the constitution 
of the individual, or whether it is foreign to the constitu- 
tion, and imparted to him by some other being. 

But let us inquire what is this power, called moral, in 
contradistinction to natural. It is said to consist in incli- 
nation. But we have already seen that an individual may 
possess the desire, inclination, or disposition, to perform a 
particular action, and yet be wholly unable, notwithstand- 
ing he may be in the possession of all his faculties. So 
that the moral ability is an ability which does not constitute 
him able, and, consequently, is no ability at all. But if 
we grant, for argument's sake, that it is a real ability, this 
absurdity will follow, — that I may have a real ability to 
bestow money on a poor and suffering applicant, when, at 
the same time, I have not a farthing at my disposal. 

Again, this definition, by identifying power with inclina- 
tion, leads to a most perplexing perversion of language, 
and blends, in entire confusion, some of the plainest and 
most distinct conceptions of the human mind. Inclination 
and ability are universally understood to be distinct. Men 
are every day pronounced willing, and yet unable to per- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 351 

form actions : and, on this account, are excused or justi- 
fied. They are also pronounced able, and yet unwilling ; 
and, on this account, are condemned. But this sapient dis- 
tinction confounds what is thus universally distinguished, 
and sanctions the following absurd and bewildering con- 
clusions, — that those w T ho are willing to perform an 
action, but wholly destitute of the requisite power and 
means, are at the same time able to perform it ; they have 
the moral ability ; while those who have ample means , 
and full power, and are merely unwilling, are neverthe- 
less unable. Again, as ability is the ground of moral ob- 
ligation, and justifies the punishment of disobedience, it 
follows from these notions that men are under obligation 
to do what they are unable because they are able; and 
likewise that they are justified in not doing what they are 
unable to do, because they are able ; and likewise punished 
for not doing what they are able to do, not only while they 
are unable, but also because they are unable. Such is the 
jargon which this wonderful philosophy authorizes. 

But while this distinction, as explained by its advocates, 
leads to such horrible chaos of thought and expression, 
it answers most admirably the purposes of New School 
divinity. " Some kind of ability" to obey the gospel 
must be attributed to the sinner, to give plausibility to the 
doctrine of his accountability, and the offers of a free sal- 
vation, while some kind of inability must be attributed to 
him to secure Calvinism. On the ground of natural 
ability, the sinner can be assured " that the reason why 
he does not come to Christ is, he will not," — *" that he may 
be saved if he will." These propositions certainly look 
very fair and unexceptionable. One might suppose that 
the most rigid Arminian could not fail to be satisfied with 
them. Surely no Methodist preacher preaches a freer 
salvation than this. Ay! and who would suppose, that 
these fair-faced, smooth-tongued propositions contained 



352 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



the doctrine of a real inability to come to Christ and be 
saved ; and were carefully constructed, so as to secure the 
doctrine that God has elected a certain number to salva- 
tion from all eternity, to the exclusion of all the rest ; and 
that the number is so definite, that it cannot be in- 
creased or diminished? But in what parts of the pro- 
positions is this inability concealed? In those which 
relate to the will. In New Schoolism, inclination and 
ability, disinclination and inability are identical. In the 
New School vocabulary, the terms will and can, will not 
and cannot, mean the same thing. They are employed 
interchangeably, as orthodoxy, or the popular ear, may re- 
quire. Give the term " will" its technical, New School 
signification, and these propositions mean, " The reason 
why the sinner does not come to Christ is he cannot" 
" The sinner may be saved if he can" In that portentous 
and generally italicized clause " if he will" lies the awful 
record of the fate of the poor reprobate. That " will" is 
the moral ability which none have but those to whom God 
gives it, and he has eternally decreed to give it to none 
but the elect. 

If by the term will we understand the power or faculty of 
willing — as that is a constitutional faculty — essential to free 
agency, the absence of it must constitute, according to the 
distinction in question, a natural, and not a moral inability. 

Perhaps it may be supposed that this theory will appear 
to greater advantage if the term will be taken in the sense 
of actual volition. This is the only alternative that re- 
mains. But if it be thus explained and used, as it often 
is in this controversy, and actual volition be considered to 
constitute the moral ability, and the absence of it the mo- 
ral inability, it will follow, indubitably, that the action and 
the power to perform it, are identical. The moral ability 
is not only the power by which the act is performed, but 
it is the act itself. The act is its own cause. And the 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 353 

explanation of the sinner's conduct is this, — he does not 
obey God because he does not obey God ; he does not 
perform the act because he has not the act. He has not 
the ability because he does not perform the ability. The 
very plausible propositions, that the sinner cannot obey 
God unless he has the moral ability, he can if he will, 
&c, convey to us this most important instruction — the 
sinner cannot obey God unless he does obey him ; he can 
obey him if he obeys him. 

The secret of the whole matter is this : It was found 
necessary to distinguish the ability to serve God into 
" sorts" or " kinds." The sinner must be allowed to have 
some sort of ability, or it is useless to offer him salvation. 
He must, at the same time, be considered subject to some 
sort of inability, or the doctrines of partial redemption and 
Calvinistic election are endangered. And then a nomen- 
clature must be found for these kinds of ability. The 
name of the ability which all are supposed to possess, 
must convey the idea of a real ability, and yet have such 
a definition as may be made to comport with the scheme 
which it seems to contradict. It may therefore be called 
a " natural" ability, and defined to consist in the posses- 
sion of constitutional faculties, &c. 

As for the other kind of ability, it may be called w mo- 
ral ;" for there is not a more convenient word in the Eng- 
lish language. It means almost every thing. We have 
the distinction of conduct into moral and immoral, — of 
faculties into moral, intellectual, and corporeal, — of laws 
into moral and positive — moral and ceremonial,— of evi- 
dence into moral and demonstrative, — of agents into moral 
and unintelligent ; — and why cannot we have a moral 
ability, as distinguished from natural ? This is the very 
name. And if among all the senses of this wonderful 
word, the sense which. this distinction requires is not to 
be found, learned men need only conspire to give it a new 



354 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

sense. Professors of colleges can honour it with a new 
diploma. Both of these terms are perfectly arbitrary. 
They are mere technicalities, which none but the initiated 
are intended to understand. 

Unreasonable as this distinction is, its advocates attempt 
to justify it both by reason and Scripture. And it is not 
to be wondered at, that men of superior learning and ge- 
nius, should succeed in presenting it in somewhat plausi- 
ble aspects. But the fact that the utmost efforts of such 
men have utterly failed to establish it, furnishes no feeble 
presumption of its invalidity. 

They insist that it is universally recognised. Mr. Duf- 
field says, u Every body understands the subject, and dis- 
tinguishes thus between natural and moral ability. The 
giddy and thoughtless child is punished who says he can- 
not get his lesson, it being well understood that either a 
dislike for his book, or some other considerations, prevent 
him from applying his mind to it. The servant is ac- 
counted guilty who makes the same plea. The parent 
sees a thousand exemplifications of this thing, and if he 
were, in all cases, to admit the truth of the child's decla- 
rations as to ability, he might soon cease to command." 

It is readily admitted that the word cannot is frequently 
used to signify want of will or disposition, and that the 
phrase " I cannot' 1 is frequently given in reply to solicita- 
tions, when the persons replying are merely unwilling. 
But in such cases no real inability exists. In many in- 
stances it is not intended to convey the idea of inability ; 
but merely that of reluctance or inconvenience. It is 
often employed to express an ill-natured refusal. It is 
true, it is sometimes intended to convey the idea of real 
inability, where there is nothing but unwillingness ; but 
in such cases persons may either be mistaken as to the 
power they possess, imagining themselves unable when 
they are not ; or they may assert what they know to be 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 355 

a falsehood. In the example of Mr. Duffield, the child is 
punished who says " he cannot get his lesson." But why- 
is he punished ? Because his saying " he cannot get his 
lesson" is understood to be mere pretence. The parent 
does not distinguish between natural and moral ability. 
He distinguishes between inability and unwillingness. 
He knows there is no inability in the case. The servant 
makes the same plea, but the master does not believe him. 
He knows the plea is false. " If the parent," says Mr. 
Duffield, " were in all cases to admit the truth of the 
child's declaration as to ability, he might soon cease to 
command." And yet, is it not obvious that the fate of this 
theory depends altogether on admitting " the truth of the 
child's declarations ?" If their truth be not admitted, the 
example furnishes no proof of the position it was brought 
forward to establish. It proves merely that people every- 
where distinguish between inability, and an attempt at 
imposition, by falsely alleging an inability where it does 
not exist. But if every person understands the distinction 
of natural and moral ability — if the terms unable and un- 
willing, cannot and will not, are universally understood to 
mean the same thing, is it not somewhat singular that men 
should attempt to impose on each other, by saying that 
they are unable, when they are merely unwilling ? Do 
they not know that they are attempting to deceive by 
words which convey no deceptive meaning ? Would they 
not, if that were the case, invariably qualify their declara- 
tions of inability, for the purpose of deception, by saying, 
I am naturally unable ? The fact that men do attempt to 
deceive by pretending to inability simply, when they are 
merely unwilling, proves plainly that they do not consider 
inability and unwillingness to be the same thing, 

In order to make out the universal recognition of this 
distinction, its advocates find it necessary to misstate the 
question at issue. Dr. Beecher remarks, " I have said 



356 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

that this use of the terms cannot, unable, &c, to indicate 
those things which men are able to perform, but do not 
choose to do, is not a phraseology peculiar to the Bible, 
but is a mode of speaking into which the universal mind 
of man in all nations, ages, and languages, has fallen." 
Again : " There is hardly an author of repute, from the 
time of Alfred to the present day — whether a poet, a his- 
torian, an essayist, or a metaphysician, who does not 
afford abundant examples of such use of the word cannot." 

Now all this is wide of the mark. No one denies that 
the " terms cannot, unable, &c," are used " to indicate 
those things which men are able to perform, but do not 
choose to do." If this be all the doctor undertakes to 
prove, he might have declined the unnecessary trouble. 
But this is a very different thing from proving that when- 
ever the terms cannot, unable, &c, are so used, they signify 
a real inability, and that, therefore, there are two kinds of 
inability. All that he has proved is, that these terms are 
frequently used when it is understood that there is no ina- 
bility in the case. 

The supposed Scripture proofs consist chiefly in ex- 
amples in which the word " cannot" is used, when it is 
presumed that there is no absolute inability. The reason- 
ings on these examples will be found to proceed on two 
false assumptions. 

In the first place, it is assumed that the word " cannot" 
invariably implies a real inability. If this be not the case, 
the texts in which it is used may furnish no proof of the 
disputed distinction. Secondly, it is assumed that while 
the term cannot always implies real inability, it does not 
in any of these examples import a natural inability. For 
if it does, the texts not only furnish no proof of the dis- 
tinction of ability into natural and moral, but expressly 
contradict the doctrine that all have a natural ability 
to serve God ; and thus, at the same time, directly dis- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 357 

prove the distinction, and uproot the theory which it is 
intended to sustain. 

Let us then test these assumptions. In the first place, 
we are not authorized to infer invariably the existence of 
a real inability from the use of the term cannot. It is often 
used when no inability is intended — to express mere re- 
fusal. And in many instances when it is used purposely 
to convey the idea of inability, we do not infer from it the 
existence of inability. We suppose the individual to be 
mistaken in the estimate of his power. He says, " he 
cannot," but we have no doubt that he can. In other in- 
stances, it is used for deception. The individual who says, 
" I cannot," knows at the same time that he can ; but he 
intends to deceive. He asserts what he knows to be false. 
The term sometimes signifies inconvenience. For in- 
stance, I ask a friend to accompany me to some distant 
place. He is pleased with the proposal, and unhesitat- 
ingly consents. He makes - all necessary preparation; 
but just as we are about to leave, some emergency arrests 
his attention. He is ardently desirous to go, but it is very 
inconvenient. He hesitates and resolves, and resolves 
and hesitates ; and at last, by a powerful effort of self- 
denial, he says, " I cannot go." He does not intend to 
assert inability, but merely great inconvenience ; and this 
he does in the strong hyperbolical language, " I cannot." 

In reply to the second assumption, we affirm, that when- 
ever the term imports real inability, that inability is natu- 
ral. It may, perhaps, without any impropriety, be called 
moral, but it is as certainly a natural inability, as it is an 
inability at all. It will be found, on investigation, to have 
its seat in the constitution of our nature. Moral inability 
is said to consist in a want of will. The term will in this 
controversy, signifies sometimes the faculty itself — the 
power of willing — sometimes inclination or desire — some- 
times the exercise of the faculty, or actual volition. Now, 



358 NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 

if we understand by this term, the faculty of willing — this 
being a natural faculty, the inability which consists in its 
absence must be natural. If we take it to mean inclina- 
tion, and suppose that its absence constitutes a real ina- 
bility, it must be because there is something in the consti- 
tution of our nature, by which we are disqualified to do 
what we have no inclination to do, or to do which we are 
strongly disinclined ; and the inability is therefore natural. 
But if there be nothing in the constitution of our nature 
which disqualifies us for doing that for which we have no 
inclination — if still we have ability, the want of inclina- 
tion does not cause or constitute a real inability, and the 
proof of the distinction fails. If the term " will" be un- 
derstood to mean simple, actual volition, we have the ab- 
surdity of identifying the act itself with the ability to per- 
form it. 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

We will now proceed to review the examples adduced 
by Mr. Duflield and Dr. Beecher, in support of this dis- 
tinction. The first, by Mr. D., is Samuel's reply, when 
God commanded him to go and anoint David, " How can 
I go 1 if Saul hear it, he will kill me." He reasons thus : 
" While Samuel's unbelief and fears prevailed, his will 
was prevented from giving its consent to go, and he felt 
as if it were a thing utterly impossible which the Lord re- 
quired." It is here assumed that Samuel laboured under 
a real inability, because he says, " How can I go ?" and 
that it was not a natural inability, but consisted in a refu- 
sal of the will. He could have gone if he would. And 
the inference is, that it was therefore a moral inability* 



NEW DIVINITY-— CALVINISM, 359 

Our answer is, either that Samuel did not intend to assert 
inability, but used the expression figuratively, to denote great 
inconvenience or reluctance ; or his feeling that it was a 
thing utterly impossible was a mistaken impression, sup- 
posing that to be impossible which was not ; or if there 
was a real inability, that inability was natural. It arose 
out of the constitution of his nature — out of the conflict 
between the emotion of fear, and the power of willing ; 
which are constitutional principles, in which his fears 
prevailed, and prevented that act of the will which was 
naturally and absolutely necessary to obedience. 

The next example is the passage in which the Apostle 
Paul says, with respect to the " cherubim of glory over- 
shadowing the mercy-seat" in the holy of holies, " of 
which we cannot now speak particularly." The only re- 
ply necessary is, that the apostle did not intend to assert 
inability. The word " cannot" is used in a figurative 
sense to signify inconvenience. It would have been an 
unnecessary digression from the subject which the apostle 
was discussing. 

The next example is in the words of our Saviour, " Can 
the children of the bridegroom fast, while the bridegroom 
is with them ? As long as the bridegroom is with them 
they cannot fast." " This," says Mr. D., " is wholly an 
inability of will." We reply, there is no inability in the 
case. The Saviour did not intend to assert inability, 
The language is figurative, and Mr. D.'s comment confirms 
this declaration. He says, " The thing itself is not impos- 
sible, but the season is one which is generally so joyous, 
and is wont to be so connected with festivity as to render 
it morally impossible to fast. Men are rendered unwilling, 
reluctant to do what they are able, and under other circum- 
stances they might be induced to do." It is tnie, he says 
it is " morally impossible ;" but it would seem that in his 
vocabulary, " morally impossible" and " not impossible" 



360 0 : JE\V DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

mean the same thing : and our Saviour is made to affirm 
that they are not able to do what it is " not impossible" for 
them to do ; but " what they are able, and under other 
circumstances might be induced to do." Surely this text 
and comment will multiply converts to the distinction very 
rapidly ! 

The fourth example is as follows : — " In like manner 
the Evangelist John says, ' that there are many things 
which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written 
every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not 
contain the books that should be written.' This was not 
a natural impossibility." The reader will at once per- 
ceive the special aptness of this illustration, and how ad- 
mirably it sustains the author's distinction. The world, it 
is supposed, possessed a natural ability to contain the 
books, but was destitute of the moral ability — was unwil- 
ling — positively refused. What a wicked world ! The 
reader will endeavour to suppress any irreverent disposi- 
tion to smile, as this distinction is deemed of very great 
importance. Desperate indeed must be the cause which 
trusts to such proofs for support. Who does not perceive, 
at one glance, that the evangelist merely uses a strong 
figurative expression, to suggest the vast number of books 
which the sayings of Christ would fill, if recorded ? 

Another example is this : " It is said of our Saviour, on 
a certain occasion, that in going into his own country, ' he 
could there do no mighty works.' No one will pretend 
that this was a natural inability — that the Saviour lacked 
energy or capacity." Certainly not. It is not necessary 
to pretend that there was inability at all. Mr. D. himself 
explains the matter sufficiently, " but such was the unbe- 
lief of the people, that it did not comport with the plan of 
God's gracious dealing with men, for him, under such cir- 
cumstances, to exert his power." 

Again : " He also prayed, ' If it be possible^ let this cup 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 361 

pass from me. The impossibility in the case was wholly 
of a moral nature." To this we make a similar reply. 
The terms do not always import real impossibility. The 
Saviour may have meant, if it will comport w T ith the de- 
sign of my mission— with the plan of salvation. But if 
there was imposvsibility in the case, it was natural. It can 
be traced to the perfections of Jehovah, and the immuta* 
bility of his nature ; it being contrary to the nature of God 
not to do what he has absolutely purposed. 

" Of the same description," says Mr. D., " is the ina- 
bility under which God represents himself to have la- 
boured. 1 Though Moses and Samuel stood before me* 
yet my mind could not be toward this people.' ' The new 
moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, / cannot 
away with.' And thus we say a holy God cannot do arf 
unholy thing — a just God cannot do an unjust thing — a 
faithful God cannot lie.' " The explanation of all these 
examples has already been furnished. We will only add, 
that if the inability which arises out of the natural consti-* 
tution be a natural inability, Jehovah is subject to a natural 
inability to lie, We might as well say that it is a matter 
of volition whether he continue to exist, as whether he 
will contradict his own attributes. It is from a necessity 
of nature that he is holy, and cannot do what is unholy. 

Mr. D. continues, " Of the same nature is the inability 
to sin which is predicated of those who are born again. 
' Whosoever,' says the Apostle John, * is bom of God, doth 
not commit sin, his seed remaineth in him ; and he can- 
not sin, because he is born of God.' w Whatever may be 
the critical meaning of this text, it fails to answer Mr. D.'s 
purpose. He thus comments upon it : " It is morally im- 
possible that the believer should deliberately and wilfully, 
or habitually sin against God, and yet no one will pretend 
that he has not ability to do so." It seems, then, accord- 
ing to his own interpretation, that the moral impossibility 

16 



362 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 



is not a real one, since he supposes that " no one will pre- 
tend that the believer has not ability to sin against God," 
unless indeed a real possibility and a real impossibility- 
are the same. The truth is this : if there is an impossi- 
bility in the case, which we neither affirm nor deny, it is 
as much natural as moral. It is traceable to the constitu- 
tion of human nature as acted upon by religious influence. 

Among the Scriptural proofs brought forward by Dr. 
Beecher, are several of the passages already considered. 
Although there are slight characteristic differences in the 
manner in which they are presented, they proceed, in both 
cases, on the same principles, and one answer is sufficient. 
We shall therefore confine ourselves to the additional ex- 
amples presented by Dr. Beecher : — 
• " Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of ?" On this text 
he remarks, " It was the cup of suffering and ignominy ; 
and he meant not whether they could feel pain and perse- 
cution, and shame, (for he told them that they should,) 
but whether they were willing, and believed that they 
should continue willing, to suffer with him — ' Can ye V 
that is, are you, and shall you be willing?" It is very easy 
to refute a man when he first refutes himself. We can 
show by Dr. B.'s own explanation, that the Saviour had 
no reference to ability whatever, although he uses the 
word t£ can." He says, " he meant not whether they could 
feel pain, and persecution, and shame, (for he told them 
that they should,) but whether they were willing" Of 
course this text fails to prove two kinds of ability, since 
the Saviour has no reference to ability. 

" 4 Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean that 
is, thou canst do it, if thou art willing — implying, as in 
the case before, that he could not cleanse him, if unwil- 
ling, calling unwillingness inability." To this we answer, 
the text does not assert inability — -but, on the contrary, 
ability. The sense is, plainly, " Thou canst make me 



N E W D I VINIT Y—CAL ViN IS 3fv 



363 



clean." It therefore furnishes no proof of inability of any 
kind. But does not the expression, " if thou wilt," imply 
" that he could not cleanse him if unwilling ?" No. It is 
a very common form of expression to affirm entire ability s 
whether there be willingness or unwillingness. An indi- 
vidual is asked to confer a favour. He replies, for the 
purpose of refusing merely, " I cannot," knowing at the 
same time that it is in his power. It is instantly rejoined, 
" You can, if you will." In this rejoinder there is no in* 
tention whatever of implying that unwillingness constitutes 
inability. The meaning intended is, simply, you can. It 
is intended to affirm the ability of the individual, in oppo- 
sition to his declaration of inability. The form of expres- 
sion may not be strictly accurate ; and it is worthy of 
notice, that it is not the language of an inspired man, but 
of the leper who came to Jesus Christ. To build an im- 
portant metaphysical distinction, intended to sustain a 
whole system of theology, on such an expression, is not 
to build upon a rock, but on the sand. It is like placing 
the world on the back of the elephant, and the elephant 
on the back of the tortoise, and the tortoise upon — nothing! 
Besides, we have shown that if unwillingness constitutes 
inability, the inability is naturaL It arises out of the con- 
stitution of our nature. 

" This is a hard saying — who can hear it f We are 
under no necessity of inferring inability from this text. 
Dr. B. says himself, " This means not that a sinner has 
no power to hear the humbling doctrine of depravity ; but, 
who, as we say, can bear it, that is, be willing^— -be pleased 
with it ;" we shall only add, that the process by which a 
real inability is proved, in this case, will prove that ability 
natural. 

" Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup 
of devils." The apostle, when he penned these words 
was cautioning the Corinthians against idolatry ; and the 



364 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



most probable meaning of them is, Ye cannot, at the same 
time, be Christians and idolaters. If this is the correct 
interpretation, the inability asserted is natural. It is as 
impossible as that a man should be in two places at the 
same time. However, it is not necessary to enter criti- 
cally into the meaning of the text, to show that it furnishes 
no proof of the distinction. The doctor's own comment 
refutes him. He considers the inability to be wholly 
moral. He says, " The natural ability of man qualifies 
him to sit at either table." It is to be observed, that the 
apostle does not affirm an inability to sit at " either" table, 
but at both tables. He does not say, " Ye cannot drink 
of the cup of the Lord, or the cup of devils ; — ye cannot 
make your choice ; "but "Ye cannot drink of the cup of the 
Lord and the cup of devils." So the doctor himself pre- 
sents it in the next clause : " but, while he prefers the 
table of the Lord, he cannot prefer the table of devils." 
It seems, then, that, in the estimation of Dr. B., a man 
has a natural ability to prefer two things to each other, at 
the same time ; and that the sole reason why he does not 
is, that he is unwilling — and this is the moral inability. 
Wonderful philosophy ! Who cannot perceive that it is as 
naturally impossible for a man to prefer two things to 
each other at the same time, as it is to exist and not exist 
at the same time. The inability which the apostle here 
asserts is therefore strictly natural. 

" The carnal mind is enmity against God, not subject 
to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It is a strange 
thing to find this text brought forward to prove that man 
has a natural ability to keep the law of God, and that he 
is merely unwilling. By a reference to the second chap- 
ter it will be seen that it furnishes decisive proof to the 
contrary. But let us see the doctor's own reasoning 
upon it. He says, "If this means a natural inability, 
how does regeneration help the matter, as it includes the 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 365 

creation of no new natural powers or faculties ?" Here is 
the absurdity again, of identifying ability with constitu- 
tional powers or faculties. The doctor is at a loss to 
know, if it be a natural ability, how regeneration will help 
the matter, since it imparts no new natural powers or 
faculties ? We think we can tell him in a few words. It 
helps the matter, not by creating new powers or faculties, 
but by imparting new power to the powers or faculties 
already possessed. It helps the matter, by changing the 
mind from " carnal" to " spiritual." He proceeds : " But 
if it means that the carnal mind is one, which, by its 
friendship for the world, is at enmity with God, then it is 
plain that the mind which prefers the creature to God, 
cannot at the same time prefer God to the creature, though 
the hinderance is not natural, but the inability of the will 
— a moral inability." He seems determined to make the 
public believe, that a man has a natural ability to prefer 
two things opposite to each other at the same time ; 
that the only reason why he does not " prefer the crea- 
ture to God" and " at the same time prefer God to the 
creature" is, he will not. Against an absurdity like this 
I know of no argument ; and I am not disposed to wield 
against its learned author the shafts of ridicule. 

Again : " And Joshua said, Ye cannot serve the Lord, 
for he is a holy God." And how are these words to 
prove the existence of two kinds of inability ? " The 
people understood him to say, that they had no moral 
ability — no heart to serve him, because they were so sin- 
ful." But they replied, " Nay, but we will serve the Lord ; 
we have the ability, because we have the will." 

This is the most gratuitous interpretation that could be 
imagined, as will appear on examining the whole passage. 
It reduces the solemn address of Joshua, and the equally 
solemn response of the people, to a mere dispute ; Joshua 
affirming that they have " no moral ability, no heart to serve 



366 



NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM, 



God," and they replying that they have. But how does 
Dr. B., or any other man, know that the people understood 
Joshua to say, " that they had no moral ability to serve" 
God 1 How does he know that they did not understand 
him to say they had no natural ability ? 

It cannot be inferred from the reply, because it would 
be equally applicable on either supposition. Whether 
Joshua meant natural or moral inability, the people are re- 
presented by the doctor as flatly contradicting him. 

The true meaning of this text may be determined by a 
reference to the context. The Israelites were predisposed 
to idolatry, Joshua exhorts them thus : " Now, therefore, 
fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth, and 
put away the gods which your fathers served on the other 
side of the flood, and in Egypt ; and serve ye the Lord." 
He then calls upon them to decide immediately whether 
they will serve God or not. " And if it seem evil unto 
you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will 
serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served, that 
were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the 
Amorites, in whose land ye dwell ; but as for me and my 
house, we will serve the Lord," The people replied, 
" God forbid that we should forsake the Lord to serve 
other gods," They then recount his acts cf mercy and 
of power in their behalf as a people, and conclude " there* 
fore will we also serve the Lord, for he is our God." 
Joshua then said, " Ye cannot serve the Lord." He nei- 
ther intended to assert inability, nor unwillingness, simply, 
to serve the Lord, hut the impossibility of their serv- 
ing the Lord, and idols at the same time. The reason 
which he assigns why they cannot serve the Lord, is 
not their supposed unwillingness, but that " he is a 
holy God ; he is a jealous God \ he will not forgive your 
transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, 
m$ serve strange gods, then will he turn and do you hur^ 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 367 

and consume you, after that he hath done you good." 
Then the people answered, u Nay ; but we will serve the 
Lord ;" — not meaning " we have the moral ability," in op- 
position to Joshua's supposed assertion that, they had not ; 
but meaning that they would prefer the service of God to 
the service of idols,— that they would serve God alone. 
This was the decision to which Joshua urged them, when 
he said, " Choose you this day whom ye will serve." 
The verses following confirm this explanation : — " And 
Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against 
yourselves, that ye have chosen you the Lord to serve 
him. And they said, We are witnesses. Now, therefore," 
adds Joshua, " put away the strange gods which are among 
you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel." 
It is plain, therefore, that the people did not understand 
Joshua as asserting their unwillingness to serve God ; but 
their inability to serve God and idols at the same time, 
which was certainly a natural inability; and the words, 
" Nay, but we will serve the Lord," record their selection. 
They chose the Lord, and Joshua leads them to ratify the 
choice by a solemn covenant. 

" i How can ye believe who receive honour one of 
another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God ?' 
That is, how can you believe who prefer the praise of man 
more than the praise of God ; who voluntarily set at 
naught Jesus Christ ?'• This is intended, of course, for 
another example of moral inability, in opposition to natu- 
ral. Whether it answers the design or not, will depend 
on whether a man has a natural ability to perform two 
mental exercises, entirely opposite in their character, at 
the same time. We apprehend that he has not ; and that 
the inability is therefore natural. 

" The natural man cannot know the things of the king- 
dom of God." To this text the doctor appends the fol- 
lowing questions and the answer :— " But why can he 



WB NEW DIVINITY— —CALVINISM. 

mot ?— what hinders thus insinuating that this is 
another example of inability , consisting in unwillingness. 
Ans. 4 If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them who are lost > 
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the hearts of 
them that believe not.' 1 No man can come unto me, ex* 
cept the Father draw him ;* i. e. by his hearing and being 
taught of God ; making the reading, and especially the 
preaching of his word, the means of his effectual calling 
by his Spirit." The reader will at once perceive that 
this answer is highly Calvinistic, The natural man can- 
not know these things because he is lost, and the gospel 
is hid from him ; and the Father has not seen proper to 
" draw him* — to give him the tt effectual calling 5* so that 
the natural ability of the sinner is an ability which exists 
in the absence of the indispensable means. 

We think we can answer the questions in a different 
manner, and quite as perspicuously. The natural man 
cannot know these things " because they are spiritually 
discerned," — -because they can be known only by the 
spiritual man, and he is natural. They can be discerned 
from one position only, and he occupies another. They 
can be seen only from a high and commanding elevation % 
and he refuses to ascend it.. His inability is, therefore^, 
just as much natural as is Dr.. B/s inability to see New- 
York from Cincinnati, Whether the natural man can be- 
come spiritual or not — -and whence the ability to become 
spiritual is derived— are other questions. 

This is his last Scripture example. He advertises his 
readers in the next paragraph, that thousands might be 
added. If among the reserved thousands there are none 
more relevant than those presented, he has done well to 
keep them back, thereby saving time, labour, and expense, 
But if there be one in his prodigious list which bears 
conclusively on this point, we would be glad to see it 
perhaps it may yet be furnished. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



369 



He next undertakes to make it appear that this distinc- 
tion is recognised, not only by the Scriptures, but by man- 
kind in general, in all the varieties of social intercourse, 
a from the familiarity of conversational and business dia- 
lect, up to the most laboured efforts of argument and elo- 
quence." For this purpose, he presents a number of 
" examples from writers of eminence." Some of them 
we will examine. 

Edwards is first introduced : — " To give some instan- 
ces of this moral inability, a woman of great chastity and 
honour may have a moral inability to prostitute herself 
to her slave." So she may, and a natural inability like- 
wise. It is contrary to the nature of things, that a woman 
should sustain such opposite characters at the same 
time. But she may cease to be " a woman of great honour 
and chastity," and then there may be no inability, either 
natural or moral. 

" A child of great love and duty may be unable to be 
willing to kill his father." Certainly, and the inability is 
strictly natural. He must cease to be " a child of great 
love and duty," and then he may be able to " be willing to 
kill his father." The faculties immediately employed in 
willing are just as much natural as those employed in 
executing the volitions of the mind. 

" A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may 
be unable to forbear taking strong drink." Perhaps he 
may, and the inability may be natural, originating in the 
human constitution as enfeebled by drunkenness, and 
acted upon by " such and such circumstances." 

" A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevo- 
lent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity ; yea, 
some may be so under the power of a vile disposition 
that they may be unable to love those who are most 
worthy of their esteem and affection." And whence the 
inability? Has it not its origin in the constitution of 

16* 



370 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM:. 



tilings — in the natural impossibility of sustaining two 
diametrically opposite characters at the same time — of 
being both malicious and benevolent at the same time 
toward the same object 1 It is therefore a natural ina- 
bility. Whether the man may cease to be malicious, and 
escape from the power of a vile disposition, is another 
question. We believe, that, through the grace of God, 
he may, and then the inability will cease. 

" A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holi- 
ness, may cause a moral inability to love wickedness in 
general, may render a man unable to take complacence in 
wicked persons or things ; or to choose a wicked life, and 
prefer it to a virtuous life/' That is, as I understand it, 
while a man has " a strong habit of virtue, and a great de- 
gree of holiness," he cannot "love wickedness in general," 
nor " take complacence in wicked persons or things," nor 
" choose a wicked life in preference to a virtuous life." 
Certainly not ; because to do these things would imply 
that he had no holiness at all, and a strong habit of vice* 
The inability in this case is like that which stands in the 
way of his existing and not existing at the same time. It 
is another question, whether he may suffer his " strong 
habit of virtue and great degree of holiness" to be im- 
paired and destroyed, and then " love wickedness in 
general," &c. 

" And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual 
wickedness may lay a man under an inability to love and 
choose holiness, and render him utterly unable to love an 
infinitely holy being, or to choose and cleave to him as his 
chief good." But what does the natural ability of a man 
" to love and choose holiness" amount to, when from some 
cause, or causes, he is not only " laid under an inability," 
but is " utterly unable V 9 It is evidently no ability. The 
example sufficiently refutes itself. It is, however, the 
doctrine of Methodism, that while man, in consequence of 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



371 



depravity, has not naturally the ability " to love God and 
choose holiness," the grace of God is given to counteract 
that depravity, so that he may be enabled to perform, at 
any time, the first of the series of acts which leads on, 
with greater or less rapidity, to ultimate holiness ; and 
likewise to assist him in the performance of each succes- 
sive act ; and that this grace is given to every man. 

Buck is next brought forward. It is the more important 
to notice his examples, as his Dictionary, in which they 
are found, has a very extensive circulation. Examples 
of natural and moral inability are placed in opposite 
columns. 

With reference to those intended to illustrate natural 
inability, there can be no dispute. They are what they 
profess to be. 

" Cain could not have killed Abel, if Cain had been the 
weakest, and Abel aware of him. 

" Jacob could not rejoice in Joseph's exaltation before 
he heard of it. 

" The woman mentioned in 2 Kings vi, 29, could not 
kill her neighbour's son and eat him, when he was hid, 
and she could not find him. 

" Hazael could not have smothered Benhadad, if he had 
not been suffered to enter his chamber." 

The examples of moral, as distinguished from natural 
inability, are, however, somewhat doubtful. 

" Cain could not have killed Abel, if Cain had feared 
God and loved his brother." That is, as we suppose, 
while he feared God and loved his brother. We readily 
assent to this ; but the inability is natural ; just as much so 
as "if Cain had been the weakest, and Abel aware of him." 
This example is of the same class as those from Edwards. 
It arises out of man's constitutional inability to entertain 
and manifest directly opposite dispositions and feelings, 
toward the same object, at the same time. It was natu^ 



372 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM- 

rally impossible that Cain should fear God and love his 
brother, and be regardless of God, and hate and murder 
his brother, at the same moment. 

" Potiphar's wife could not rejoice in it (Joseph's ex- 
altation) while she continued under it." Why? What 
reason can be assigned for this assertion ? How does this 
prove the distinction ? The illustration is too brief to be 
intelligible, and we will let it go for what it is worth. 

" Had that woman (mentioned in 2 Kings, &c.) been a 
very affectionate mother, she could not have killed her 
son in a time of plenty, as she did in a time of famine." 
Yery well ! And why could she not as easily have killed 
her son in a time of plenty ? Because the act would have 
been malignant and murderous. And is it not as much a 
natural impossibility that " a very affectionate mother" 
should be, at the same time, actuated by cruel and mur- 
derous dispositions toward her offspring, as that she 
should be a mother and not a mother at the same time I 
The inability in the case is therefore natural. It is true, 
she might have ceased to be a very affectionate mother, 
and become a hard hearted and cruel one, and then the 
inability would have been removed. 

" If a dutiful and affectionate son had been waiting on 
Benhadad in HazaePs stead, he could not have smothered 
him, as Hazael did." Why not 1 Evidently on account 
of the natural impossibility of an affectionate son's being 
at the same time actuated by murderous dispositions to- 
ward his father. 

He then proceeds to quote Lord Bacon, Dr. Johnson, 
Shakspeare, Burke, Hon. Daniel Webster, Alexander 
Hamilton, and Judge Story. It is remarkable,, however, 
that in none of the quotations, although most of these 
authors are quite modern, is this distinction named or 
referred to. Its advocates have not been able, with 
all their ingenuity, and learning* to force it into the 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM- 373 

current of general literature. The proof which these 
examples furnish is precisely similar to that furnished by 
the Scriptures. They use the term cannot when there 
is obviously no inability. Dr. B. concludes that they 
must surely mean inability, because they say cannot; and 
infers that, inasmuch as there is ability to do the things 
w r ith respect to which inability is predicated, there must, 
therefore, be two kinds of inability. 

Some of these examples are not only irrelevant, but 
also quite unfortunate for the distinction they are intended 
to establish. Take the one from Dr. Johnson, introduced 
as bringing natural and moral inability together in one 
sentence. " There never can be wanting some who will 
consider that a whole life cannot be spent on syntax and 
etymology, and that even a whole life would not be suffi- 
cient." It would be exceedingly difficult, we apprehend, 
for any but a New School Calvinist to perceive the 
slightest trace of the distinction in this passage. The 
meaning of it appears to be simply this : — There will 
always be some who will consider that a whole life can- 
not conveniently or reasonably be spent on syntax and 
etymology, and that if a whole life could be so spent, it 
would be insufficient. But how would it read on Dr. B.'s 
plan of interpretation I Here, however, we are at a loss ; 
for he has furnished no satisfactory marks by which we 
may ascertain where he locates the natural, and where 
the moral inability. If he intends the terms " never can" 
and " cannot" to represent the natural, and the terms 
" would not" the moral inability, the sense is ridiculous. 
Try it : — " It is naturally impossible that there should be 
wanting some, who will consider that it is naturally im- 
possible that a whole life should be spent on syntax and 
etymology, and that even a whole life is morally unable, 
unwilling to be sufficient." Indeed % construe the passage 



374 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

as you may, according to the doctrines it is brought for- 
ward to establish, and it is perfect nonsense. 

Equally inappropriate is the following quotation from 
Mr. Webster : — " In the very nature of things, a charter 
cannot be forced upon any body ; no one can be compelled 
to accept a grant." — This is intended as an example of 
moral inability. It is very plain, that Mr. W. did 
not intend to assert inability to force a charter, &c. ; 
but that the thing could not be done consistently, rea- 
sonably, lawfully ; and the inability to do an unlawful 
thing lawfully, is, to all intents and purposes, a natural 
inability. No man can do it, let him will ever so reso- 
lutely. But let us suppose that Mr. W. intended to 
affirm a moral, in contradistinction to a natural inability, 
and we must understand him as saying, "In the very 
nature of things, a charter will not be forced upon any 
body ; no one will be compelled to accept a grant." Thus 
the passage is changed from its argumentative character into 
a prophetical declaration that no such event will ever occur. 

The passage from Shakspeare is eminently unfortunate : 

" Pray, I cannot. — 
Though inclination be as sharp as 'twill, 
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, 
And, like a man to double business bound, 
I stand and pause where I shall first begin, 
And both neglect. 

But O what form of prayer 
Can serve my turn ? Forgive me my foul murder I 
That cannot be ; since 1 am still possessed 
Of those effects for which I did the murder ; 
My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen." 

Hamlet, scene ii, act 3. 

The dramatic personage is represented as saying that 
he {< cannot pray" Is this a natural or moral inability ? 
The New School doctrine is, that every man has a natural 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 375 

ability to do what God requires of him, and that his ina- 
bility is wholly moral — consisting in want of will. It is 
to sustain this distinction and doctrine, that the poet is 
quoted. But, most unhappily, he represents his hero as 
unable to pray, notwithstanding he has the moral ability, 
" Though inclination be as sharp as 'twill." He has a 
" strong intent," but his stronger guilt defeats it. 

Thus, in our judgment, do all these examples signally 
fail to support this distinction. It derives its plausibility, 
chiefly, from varied, cautious, and unfair modes of state- 
ment. 

Having corrected Dr. B. on this point, let us now no- 
tice an instance by Mr. Barnes. He says, in his " De- 
fence," p. 153, "There are two kinds of inability — one 
arising from want of physical powers, the other from a 
want of inclination or will. The inability of a man to 
remove a mountain is one thing, and an inability to do 
right, arising from a strong love of sin, is another." Now 
this looks very plausible, but it is fallacious. It is, osten- 
sibly, based on the well-known distribution of human 
faculties into physical or corporeal, intellectual and moral, 
and the corresponding and similar distinction of the 
power by which these classes of faculties are respectively 
exercised. But, according to this distinction, there are 
three kinds of power. Mr. B. does not say, " there are 
two kinds of inability, the one arising from the want of 
natural ability, the other from the want of moral ability," 
although such is his meaning. He uses the word physical 
instead of natural. Now this word is ambiguous. It is 
defined by lexicographers, and used by writers, to signify 
sometimes what is material, in opposition to what is intel- 
lectual or moral ; and sometimes whatever is natural or 
constitutional. The advantage which Mr. B. gains by 
substituting " physical" for natural, is this — if we deny 
the distinction of physical and moral ability, he can take 



376 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the word physical in the sense of material or corporeal, 
and thus place us in the position of denying what we do 
not intend to deny, and can confront us with authorities. 
We must admit " that the inability to remove a mountain 
is one tiling, and the inability" to compose an oration, or 
" to do right, arising from a strong love of sin, is another." 
When this point is gained, he can change the sense of 
the word " physical" from corporeal, to constitutional or 
natural, and claim to have established the distinction of 
natural and moral ability. But the sophistry of all this 
has been sufficiently exposed. While there is a real dis- 
tinction between corporeal power and moral power, be- 
tween the power to lift a weight, or " remove a moun- 
tain," and the power to will to obey God, there is not a 
distinction between natural and moral power ; or if there is 
a difference, it is merely that which exists between genus 
and species — between bird and eagle. The natural ability 
may not be moral, but it does not follow that the moral 
ability is not natural. Its advocates find it necessary to 
keep up a constant ambiguity of language. The terms 
power, physical, natural, moral, can, cannot, are all used 
ambiguously. It is not to be denied that the latter term 
is often used figuratively ; but this causes no ambiguity — 
no embarrassment. Its meaning is easily determined by 
its connection. It is so frequently used, in all its modes 
of application, in the most common intercourse of life, 
that the most ignorant are in no danger of misunderstand- 
ing it. It is only when employed in conveying the most 
important instructions — the instructions of the gospel, 
that it gives an uncertain sound. The advocates of New 
Divinity have undertaken to make it sustain two opposite 
meanings at the same time. For instance — when it is 
used figuratively, they construe it to mean unwillingness, 
in contradistinction to inability. Thus far all is right. 
But, in order to make out two kinds of ability, they con- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 377 

strue it at the same time to mean a real inability. To 
this we must be permitted to object. 

And while the philosophy of Shakspeare (whom Dr. 
Beecher describes as being " as noted for using language as 
men in every situation use it, as he is for delineation of cha- 
racter") exhibits so little affinity to that of New School Cal- 
vinism, it is remarkable how it harmonizes with the repre- 
sentations of the apostle. So far from identifying will and 
ability, Paul describes men as unable to do what they are 
strongly inclined, and make repeated efforts to do. In Rom. 
vii, he writes : — " For we know that the law is spiritual : 
but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do / 
allow not : for what / would that I do not ; but what I 
hate that I do." " For to will is present with me \ but 
how to perform that which is good I find not. For the 
good that / would I do not ; but the evil which I would 
not, that I do." " I find then a law that when I would 
do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the 
law of God after the inward man : but I see another law 
in my members warring against the law of my mind, and 
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in 
my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall de- 
liver me from the body of this death V* But if we may 
be unable to do the things which we are willing and 
endeavour to do, it is plain, that willingness does not con- 
stitute ability to do them, — that will and ability are not 
the same ; unless we may be able to do that which we 
are unable to do. The disagreement between the apostle 
and these modern theorists is irreconcilable. They teach 
that all men have a natural ability to do what God re- 
quires, and all that is necessary to secure their obedience 
is the will, which constitutes the moral ability ; from 
which it follows that so soon as a man becomes willing 
he is fully able — he had the natural ability before, he has 
the moral ability now. The apostte most imequivocally 



378 NEW DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

teaches that men may be willing and yet unable, and 
wretched on account of that inability, and wholly depend- 
ant on a deliverer to supply the necessary power. He 
therefore completely explodes the distinction of natural 
and moral ability. 

We conclude our argument with the following addi- 
tional objection : — If God requires sinners to be willing 
to serve him — if to be willing, is to be able, and to be un- 
willing, is to be unable — and if the sinner has a natural 
ability to do what is required, the sage conclusion inevita- 
bly results, that the sinner has a natural ability to be able 
to serve God. 

Indeed, so perfectly trifling is this distinction, that it 
would be matter of astonishment that men of understand- 
ing, much more of learning, should advocate or counte- 
nance it, were it not for its importance in seeming to re- 
concile a free salvation with Calvinism. It is a mere hy- 
pothesis for the solution of a theological difficulty. 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

The difficulties by which this distinction is encumbered, 
have brought it into disfavour with some of the leading 
writers of this school, who have surrendered it. They 
have not surrendered the doctrines founded upon it, but 
merely the terms by which they are represented. They 
object to any language in prayer or direct instruction, 
which asserts or implies that man is subject to inability to 
comply with all the terms of salvation. They perceive 
that the same end is secured by asserting a disinclination^ 
or want of will, merely, which is supposed to hinder the 
repentance of the sinner as effectuallv as if he were ab- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



379 



solutely unable ; and the removal of which depends on the 
influences of the Spirit. Indeed, the distinction itself 
could be of no particular service to Calvinism at any time, 
except as it may serve to prevent alarm at the doctrine of 
the sinner's ability without grace. It is more than probable 
that when it was introduced, any theory which affirms the 
ability of the unregenerate, without some neutralizing 
qualification, would have been rejected at once by the great 
body of Calvinists. But the doctrine of a moral inability, 
which nothing but electing grace could remedy, would so 
chime in with the orthodoxy of the times, as to make way 
for its Pelagian spouse — the doctrine of a natural ability, 

Among those who are disposed to proclaim a divorce 
between this long wedded but somewhat quarrelsome pair, 
we find Mr. Hinton. He says, " The appropriateness and 
expediency of the term moral inability to denote a wrong 
disposition is highly questionable. It satisfied the disputants 
of past days ; but, at the time, it rather concealed than ex- 
hibited the truth contended for, and ever since it has ra- 
ther occasioned perplexity than facilitated inquiry. The 
existence of inability on the part of sinners was the main 
position which the opposing divines had maintained ; and 
the adoption of the phrase in question, permitted them to 
continue to maintain it. Its being qualified by the term 
moral was of little consequence ; still, they said, you allow 
inability to exist, and whether natural or moral makes no dif* 
ference, it is inability." — p. 295, 

Mr. H. is, however, careful to make it appear that, in 
giving up the moral inability, he only abandons the phrase- 
ology. He holds, most tenaciously, to an indisposition, 
on the part of the sinner, to serve God, which renders the 
influences of the Spirit absolutely necessary ; that these 
influences are vouchsafed to some and not to others ; and 
that the moral differences among men, in view of which 
&ome are saved and others damned, are made by God him-* 



380 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



self. One or two brief examples will suffice to justify our 
affirmation. He says : — " What has been hitherto ad- 
vanced may be thus briefly summed up. The influence 
of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary to conver- 
sion, and certainly effectual to it. These are senti- 
ments of great glory and deep importance." — p. 76. 
What he means by " certainly effectual" is explained at 
the commencement of the chapter : — " By this language we 
mean that whensoever the Spirit begins to operate upon 
the heart of a sinner for his conversion, he invariably ac- 
complishes the work. He never suspends his interference 
until the work is achieved ; nor are there any cases in 
which his influence is ineffectual to its attainment." — p. 68. 
The meaning of this is too plain for misapprehension ; and 
the inference is too obvious for dispute, that if a sinner is 
not converted, it is because the Spirit of God never began 
to operate on the heart of that sinner for his conversion, 
although such operations are absolutely necessary. 

The first article in the American Biblical Repository 
for January 1839, entitled, "Introductory observations," 
contains an elaborate statement of doctrines professedly co- 
pied from the correspondence between Drs. Woods and 
Beecher, in 1832, as published in the " Spirit of the Pil- 
grims," vol. v, p. 496, seq. " In the statement," it is said, 
" the two distinguished and enlightened divines above 
named express their cordial agreement. They also ex- 
press it as their united opinion 1 that, with few exceptions, 
the ministers of the orthodox Congregational Church in 
New-England, together with most, if not all the Presby- 
terian ministers throughout the United States, will give 
their full assent to this statement.' They also regard it as 
e a solid basis of ministerial fellowship and co-operation.' " 

In the articles on " regeneration" and " election" 
we have the following sentiments 

H The dependance of man, as a sinner, on the Holy Spi- 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 381 

rit, is so real, universal, and absolute, that no human 
being ever was, or ever will be saved without special 
grace. The natural ability which avails to create obliga- 
tion, and to bring on the disobedient a just condemnation, 
never avails, neither alone or by any power of truth or 
help of man, to recover a sinner from alienation to evan- 
gelical obedience, because of the inflexible bias of his will to 
evtk" 

Again : i 1 An obstinate will demands as realty and cer- 
tainly the interposition of special influence, as if the ina- 
bility were natural, though the difference in respect to ob- 
ligation and guilt and deserved punishment is infinite." 

Again : " But this persuasion of the Holy Spirit in ef- 
fectual calling is not the moral suasion of man's exerting, 
or sufficient grace of God's giving, whose efficacy depends 
on the will of the sinner, and not on the energetic and 
transforming influence of the Holy Spirit, ' as the Pela- 
gians do vainly talk ;' nor is it of a kind which, when ex- 
erted, the sinner by his free will ever does resist ; but it 
is manifestly an operation supernatural, at the same time 
most powerful and most sweet, wonderful, secret, and in- 
effable in its power, according to the Scripture, not less 
than or inferior to creation, or the resurrection of the 
dead : so that all those in whose hearts God works in this 
admirable manner are certainly, infallibly, and effica- 
ciously regenerated, and in fact believe." 

Again : " All the subjects of God's special renewing 
grace are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the 
w r orld, that they should be holy and without blame before 
him in love, to the praise of the glory of his grace ; not on 
principles of law as meriting this favour, and not on the 
ground of repentance, faith, or good works foreseen. "-p. 13. 

We are here instructed, that such is the dependance of 
the sinner on the special grace of God, that no man ever 
was, or ever will be, saved without it ; that natural ability, 



382 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM* 



although it avails to create obligation and justify punish" 
ment, never did, and never will, avail to repentance ; that 
the difficulty in the way of the sinner's conversion " de- 
mands as really and certainly the interposition of the Holy 
Spirit as if the inability were natural that the exertion 
of the saving influence " does not depend on the will of 
the sinner," nor does the free will of the sinner ever re- 
sist it when exerted ; but all those on whose hearts it 
operates " are certainly, infallibly, and efficaciously re- 
generated, and in fact believe :" and that all the subjects 
of this influence were chosen to be the subjects of it be- 
fore the foundation of the world, and " not on the ground 
of repentance, or faith, or good works foreseen." Of 
course, if any are not regenerated, it is not because they 
have resisted the influences of the Spirit, which are ab- 
solutely necessary to salvation ; but because those influ- 
ences were never brought to bear upon them — because 
they were not chosen to this distinction from all eternity. 
We hope the authors and advocates of this creed will 
hereafter pay some regard to consistency, and not charge 
upon the will of the sinner the fact that he is not re- 
generated.* 

* The writer or writers of this article profess to consider these 
doctrines among the " principal fundamental doctrines on which it 
is supposed all Christians are substantially agreed." This is truly 
astonishing. There has lately been (as the reader has already been 
informed) a considerable clamour raised by certain sanguine, but 
somewhat disappointed sectarists, against sectarianism. The sen* 
timent has been inculcated that public religious instruction should 
be confined to tenets in which all Christians are agreed. Those in 
which they differ have been styled " sectarian Christianity," in con- 
tradistinction to " substantial Christianity." The promulgators of 
this sentiment have been very shy about stating the doctrines in 
which it is supposed all Christians are agreed ; for they are not 
without the sagacity to perceive that if they undertake this, and do 
it fairly, they will exclude from public teaching many important doc* 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 383 

But this doctrine of moral inability or disinclination, re- 
mediable only by the special and partially vouchsafed 
influences of the Spirit, is not the only security for the 
Calvinism of the New School, The definitions which are 

trines, or deny to large sects the right to be called Christians.— 
Occasionally, however, we have sermons and statements put forth, 
containing, professedly, nothing but what all Christians can unite 
in. The Rev. Dr. Skinner, who is terrible in his philippics against 
sectarianism, has recently published a book of sermons, of consider- 
able merit, entitled 44 Religion of the Bible." In his preface he says, 
44 It is earnestly hoped that, in perusing this book, he [the reader] 
will not once find his thoughts conversant with a subject which he 
himself will regard as a matter of doubtful disputation, or as among 
the uncertainties of religion, or as pertaining to those peculiarities, 
whether of doctrine, practice, or spirit, which have given Christians 
different names, and have divided them into contending schools and 
sects." Some of his friends, relying, we suppose, on his word, have 
echoed this eulogy. We read the book with eagerness, not a little 
anxious to see whether he could keep clear of disputed points ; and 
were not disappointed in finding doctrines eminently Calvinistic — 
such as are disputed and rejected by the great body of Arminian 
Christians. He affirms, and represents the Saviour as defending, 
the Calvinistic view respecting 44 God's sovereignty." It is fully 
developed in these words : 44 If God be influenced at all by what 
men themselves, in a moral respect, are or do, he would be in- 
fluenced, not to save, but to destroy them," p. 320. Here is an 
explicit avowal of the sentiment, that God is not influenced at all, in 
saving men, by what they, in a moral respect, are or do ; or, in 
other words, that he selects those whom he chooses to save from 
among the ungodly and impenitent, without any regard to repent- 
ance or faith foreseen, as a reason for their selection, while he re- 
jects others, who, so far as moral character is concerned, are as 
eligible to salvation as those whom he determines to save. He 
closes this sermon by saying that, if there be any mystery in this 
doctrine, it is the mystery not of the subject, but of a perverse 
and unteachable heart." 

The sermon on 44 Restraints on Divine Influence" is eminently 
warlike in its attitudes. If it does not discuss disputed doctrines, it 
deals out censures unsparingly on 44 schools and sects," on 44 minis- 



384 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



given of the ability which the sinner is declared to pos- 
sess are sufficient to preserve that system inviolate, with- 
out any other guardianship. Let them assert, with the 
utmost fulness of expression, that every sinner is fully 

ters," " particular churches," and on " peculiarities of practice and 
spirit." He finds some ministers *« under the sway of the spirit of 
sect," who would fain draw down fire from heaven to burn up 
those who do not fall in and build with them ;" and others who, 
"labouring hard in angry controversy, suppose nothing to be a 
more worthy object of pursuit than the confutation of speculative 
errors on all points of divinity ;" and others, ministers of evangeli- 
cal denominations, who, although they are not found among the open 
opposers of revivals, are induced by u peculiar circumstances of ex- 
pediency" to " repress positive expressions of aversion." Among 
churches he finds those who, " deeming no spirit so excellent as zeal 
for orthodoxy, are afraid of the influence of revivals on their stand- 
ards of faith, and so hold them in suspicion, if not in worse esteem ;" 
and " others" who, " on the contrary, overpowered by the spirit of 
party, long for nothing so much as an increase of numbers, and set 
themselves against true revivals by contrivances designed to awa- 
ken their assemblies into a great animal excitement, as a fruitful 
means of proselytism." It is certainly encouraging to think that 
there is one minister, and one church in the land, free from these 
unseemly characteristics. 

: Now we do not care to decide whether these censures are merited 
or not, nor do we object to this author's advancing his own peculiar 
doctrines, or wielding the lash of censure on the backs of ministers 
or churches that do not come up to his standard ; but we object to 
his claiming to have advanced no doctrines but what all Christians 
believe, and arrogating to himself the credit of a liberality and free- 
dom from sectarianism of which others are represented as so deplo- 
rably destitute. 

What can all this mean ? Are these great and learned men real- 
ly ignorant of the fact that the doctrines they set forth as received 
by all Christians are warmly disputed among Christians ? Or do 
they hope to spread Calvinism, by making the impression on the 
minds of those who know no better, that it is undisputed truth ? 
Or do they deny the character of Christians to all who reject these 
doctrines ? 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 385 

able to comply, at any moment, with the claims of the 
gospel — let them argue vehemently in favour of the asser- 
tion — let them insist upon it that the opposite opinion 
represents Jehovah as a tyrant — let them, on this ground, 
offer salvation to all, and urge all to come to Christ, with 
all the eloquence of persuasion — let it be imagined, as it 
is by many of their hearers, that they are genuine Armini- 
ans, and that Calvinism is the object of their righteous 
abhorrence ; and all this time Calvinism dwells securely, 
and smiles at the misapprehensions of the multitude. 
This ability consists in nothing more than the possession 
of constitutional faculties, which may be possessed in the 
absence of the power that is absolutely necessary to exer- 
cise them in the way required* 

Mr. Hinton has adopted a definition of <{ power 5 ' differ- 
ent from the above, in the management of which he has 
shown not a little ingenuity. Instead of taking the term 
in its ordinary and strictly proper sense, he defines it td 
consist in " the possession of means." He "then gives 
such illustrations of his definition, as seem to make the 
possession of means equal to the possession of power. 
But when he comes to inquire what are the means neces- 
sary to salvation, he takes care to leave out of his enu- 
meration something which he elsewhere assures us is 
absolutely necessary — the Holy Spirit's influences. Hence^ 
the ability which he ascribes to the sinner is, after all, 
an ability which is utterly and inevitably unavailing, 

17 



386 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM; 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

CALVINISM CONTINUED. 

Besides these subtilties on ability, certain distinction® 
on the atonement have been resorted to, for the same pur«> 
pose. There is so obvious an inconsistency in offering 
salvation to all, on the supposition that Christ did not die 
for all, that the man who ventures to connect these in the 
pulpit is more likely to excite contempt than to commend 
himself to the conscience. This is felt by Calvinists. 
Hence they distinguish between the atonement and the 
application of it — between atonement and redemption — be- 
tween the sufficiency of the atonement and its efficiency. 

Two or three examples may suffice. The first we shall 
select from Mr. Payne's Lectures on Divine Sovereignty^ 
referred to at the commencement of our discussions. 
He affirms that " while, on the one hand, the Saviour can^ 
not have intended to secure the salvation of all men by 
the act of offering himself up a sacrifice for sin ; yet that 
the sacrifice must, on the one hand, have been in itself 
adequate to the salvation of all men, so as to become a 
suitable foundation for the general and unlimited calls of 
the gospel. There is a broad line of distinction between 
the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ and its efficiency, 
or rather, as I would say, the sovereign purpose of the 
sacred three, in reference to its efficiency ; that is, in refer- 
ence to the exertion of that holy influence upon the minds 
of men, which secures to them the enjoyment of the 
blessings which flow through the channel of the atone- 
ment. It may be true (whether it is or not we shall in- 
quire presently, my present object is merely to illustrate 
the difference between the two things) that Jehovah did 
not intend to put forth that influence which would render 
the atonement the means of securing the salvation of all 



tffcw DIVINITY—CALVINISM. 387 

rnen ; though, as it was to become the basis of moral 
government, it was essential that it should be of infinite 
worth, and so in itself adequate to the salvation of all 
men. This I have long regarded as the true state of the 
case." — p. 209. 

Again, " If the question be * Did Christ die with the de* 
sign of laying a foundation of salvation for all men, or for 
some men V I answer, that, in this sense, he died for all 
men. If the question be 4 Did he die with the design of 
rendering the means effectual to the salvation of all men, 
or of some men V I answer^ that, in this sense, he died 
for some men only/' 

" I believe in the unlimited, universal, infinite suffi- 
ciency of the atonement of Christ — I believe it was the 
intention of God, as the moral Governor, in giving his Son 
as a sacrifice for sin, to provide a general remedy com- 
mensurate with the disease. I believe, on the other hand, 
in the limited application of the atonement. I believe it 
was the intention of God, as a sovereign, to render the 
remedy effectual, by special and sovereign influence, in 
the case of certain individuals only who are affected with 
the general disease, so that the intention of God as a 
sovereign, and as a ruler, in reference to the atonement, 
is different, the one being general, the other particular,"— 
Ibid. 

We have the sentiments of Dr. Cox, on this subject, in 
the appendix to his work on Quakerism. He remarks, 
" In modern technology (which I approve) they only are 
said to be redeemed who are actually accepted in Christ : 
for all, atonement is made ; to all, it is offered ; the Spirit 
striving through the truth as extensively as the sufficiency 
and applicability of the atonement are extensive. Still, 
to accept the offer and correspond with the offerer, is, in 
the very nature of things, the only way to be saved. 
Are all men saved ? Yes— if all repent and believe the 



388 NEW mVXNITY-^CALVtNiSltf; 

gospel! Do they ail this? He that believes men afg 
saved in sin, or that all men renounce it, must have very 
strono- faith ! We, however, do not believe that the atone* 
ment was indefinite* in the sense of the Remonstrants of 
Holland, or any other Arminians. God had a design in 
making it, which no event could frustrate. Christ eter- 
nally designed the salvation of the elect; and for these, 
in this sense exclusively, he gave his precious life. But 
this makes not the atonement less full, or alters its nature 
at all."— p. 667. 

The reader will readily perceive, that, notwithstanding 
all that is said in these passages of a " full," " unlimited,'* 
" universal" atonement, the writers hold most tenaciously 
to the great Calvinistic principle, which limits the provi- 
sion for salvation to a definite and favoured number. The 
atonement was adequate to the salvation of all men. It 
justifies the general and unlimited calls of the gospel* 
But it is not indefinite, in the sense in which Arminians 
understand it, which, we apprehend, is the sense in which 
it is generally understood. Christ eternally designed the 
salvation of the elect ; and for them, in this sense exclu- 
sively, (in the sense of designing their salvation,) he 
gave his precious life. " The Saviour cannot have intend- 
ed to secure the salvation of all men," &c. " It was the 
intention of God to render the remedy effectual in the case 
of certain individuals only? 66 The atonement was for all, 
but the elect only are said to be redeemed." 

It may serve to illustrate more vividly and impressively 
the effect of these distinctions, if we furnish an example 
of the manner in which they are applied first, for the 
purpose of preaching a free salvation, and secondly, for 
the purpose of securing the system of Calvinism. 

In Mr. Barnes' sermon, on " The Way of Salvation," 
there is a most eloquent assertion of the doctrine, that 
salvation is free for, and sincerely offered to all. The 



NEW DIVINITY— CALVINISM. 



389 



passage alluded to, is in the style of the most high-toned 
and uncompromising Arminianism. He writes : — 

" The atonement was for all men. It was an offering 
made for the race. It had not respect so much to indivi- 
duals, as to the law and perfections of God. It was an 
opening of the way for pardon— a making forgiveness 
consistent — a preserving of the truth — a magnifying of 
the law, and had no particular reference to any class of 
men. We judge that He died for all ; He tasted death 
for every man. He is the propitiation for the sins of the 
world. He came, that whosoever would believe on Him 
should not perish, but have eternal life. 

" The full benefit of the atonement is offered to all men. 
In perfect sincerity God makes the offer. He has com- 
missioned his servants to go and preach the gospel — that 
is, the good news that salvation is provided for them — to 
every creature. He that does not this ; that goes to offer 
the gospel to a part only ; to elect persons only ; or, that 
supposes that God offers the gospel only to a certain por- 
tion of mankind, violates his commission, practically 
charges God with insincerity, makes himself ' wise above 
what is written, 3 and brings great reproach on the holy 
cause of redemption. The offer of salvation is not made 
by man, but by God. It is his commission ; and it is his 
solemn charge, that the sincere offer of Heaven should be 
made to every creature. That all creatures have not 
heard it ; that every heathen man, every Indian, African, 
and Islander, have not heard it, has been owing to the un- 
faithfulness of ministers — to the avarice of the church — to 
the want of proper zeal among Christians, and not to the 
command of God, or any want of fulness in the atone- 
ment. 

" I assume the free and full offer of the gospel to all 
men, to be one of those cardinal points of the system by 
which I guage all my other views of truth. It is, in my 



390 



NEW D I V IN I T Y CALVIN IS M . 



view, a corner stone of the whole edifice ; that whieli 
makes it so glorious to God, and so full of good will to 
men.. I hold no doctrines, and, by the grace of God, never 
can hold any which will be in my view inconsistent with 
the free and full offer of the gospel to all men ; or which 
will bind my hands, or palsy my tongue^ or freeze my 
heart, when I stand before sinners to tell them of a dying 
Saviour. I stand as the messenger of God, with the as- 
surance^ that all that will may be saved ; that the atone- 
ment was full and free ; and that if any perish, it will be 
because they choose to die, and not because they are 
straitened in God. I have no fellow-feeling for any other 
gospel ; I have no right hand of fellowship to extend to 
any scheme that does not say that God sincerely offers all 
the bliss of heaven to every wandering child of Adam r — 
be he a Caffrarian, a Hindoo, a man of China, or a Lap- 
lander; a beggar or a king, a rich man, a learned man, a 
moral man, or an abandoned wretch of Christian climes. 

" The scheme of salvation I regard as offered to the 
world, as free as the light of heaven, or the rains that burst 
upon the mountains, or the full swelling of broad rivers 
and streams, or the heavings of the deep. And though 
millions do not receive it — though in regard to them the 
benefits of the plan are lost, and to them, in a certain 
sense, the plan may be said to be in vain, yet I see in 
this the hand of the same God that pours the rays of noon- 
day on barren sands, and genial showers on desert rocks, 
and gives life, bubbling springs,, and flowers, where no 
man is, to our eyes, yet not to Ms, in vain. So is the offer 
of eternal life, to every man here, to every man every- 
where, sincere and full — an offer that, though it may pro- 
duce no emotions in the sinner's bosom here, would send 
a thrill of joy through all the panting bosoms of the suffer- 
ing damned." 

Such is the manner in which this eloquent preacher 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 391 

sometimes takes occasion to assert the fulness and free- 
ness of the atonement, and the universality and sincerity 
of the gospel offers of eternal salvation. This passage, 
taken alone, is sufficient to make the heart of the Chris- 
tian or the penitent leap within him, And who that is 
unacquainted with the turnings, and windings, and diversi- 
fied subterfuges of New Divinity, would suppose, for a 
moment, that the author of these glowing paragraphs is a 
firm believer in the Calvinistic doctrines respecting pre- 
destination and election ? He not only affirms that salva- 
tion is provided for, and offered to, every creature, but 
denounces with great severity the opposite doctrines. If 
an Arminian were disposed to speak in terms severely 
condemnatory of Calvinism, it would be difficult for him 
to find language better suited to his purpose than that used 
by Mr. B. This sermon gave dissatisfaction to some of 
his brethren, as might have been expected, and he was 
put on the defence of his orthodoxy. Let us see how he 
proceeds. In his answer to the protest against his ser- 
mon, he makes the following explanations. 

" In denying that it was in itself efficacious, it was meant 
to affirm that the atonement was something which could 
be contemplated apart from the purpose to apply it ; that 
it had a dignity and value which could not be adequately 
measured by its actual application ; that it was in its na- 
ture applicable to any number of men ; that if God had 
chosen to apply it to all the world, or to have greatly in- 
creased the number of the elect, the Redeemer would not 
have been required to increase, renew, or prolong his suf- 
ferings. Its actual application to man was supposed to be 
the result of the good pleasure of God. It was supposed 
that there was a covenant transaction between the Father 
and the Son, assuring him that he should see of the travail 
of his soul, and should be satisfied, and that his people 
should be willing in the day of his power. It was not sup- 



392 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM* 



posed that the exact amount of this number was fixed by 
the nature of the atonement, but depended on the mercy 
and promise of God. 

" To the Redeemer's sufferings and death, contemplated 
apart from the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, 
in accordance with many writers, to apply the word atone- 
ment. The actual application of his work, I supposed, 
might be appropriately expressed by the word redemption. 
It was not thought that this was a departure from Scripture 
usage.. The word atonement occurs but once as applica- 
ble to the death of Christ in the New Testament ; the 
word redemption often, and this latter word it is supposed 
always with reference to the purpose to apply it. It did 
not seem then to be a gross violation of Scripture usage, 
to describe by the word atonement a thing which may and 
must be contemplated — the highest and best gift of God — 
the sufferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice : still 
less can it be seen how this usage can be construed into 
an offence against the Confession of Faith. In all our 
standards of doctrine the word atonement never occurs. 
Nor is it the purpose of the standards to decide the thing 
which I wished to express by the word — the original in- 
dependent applicability of the sufferings of Christ. The 
Confession of Faith, states only its application ; for that it 
uses the word redemption. It affirms of that, that it is 
limited and was intended to be limited. That the sermon 
never denied.'^ — Defence, p. 69. 

The whole secret of this matter is now laid open. The 
word atonement, it is said, occurs but once in the New 
Testament as applicable to the sufferings of Christ. It 
represents the original independent applicability of the suf- 
ferings of Christ. It was in its nature applicable to any num 
ber of men, and if God had chosen greatly to increase the 
number of the elect, no additional suffering on the part of 
Christ would have been requisite. But there is a distinction 



NEW DIVINITY — -CALVINISM. 393 

between the atonement and the application of it. The atone- 
ment without the application is not adequate to the salvation 
of any one ; the application is absolutely necessary. It is 
the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; and it would be 
infidelity itself to suppose that a sinner can be saved whom 
Christ has not redeemed. But the application of the 
atonement, or the redemption, is by no means coextensive 
with the atonement. It is determined by the good plea- 
sure of God, and by a covenant transaction between the 
Father and the Son, in which the exact number to whom 
it is applied is fixed. It is limited to the elect. Mr. B, 
claims to agree with the Confession of Faith on this sub ■ 
ject. The Confession of Faith says nothing about atone- 
ment, it states only its application. u For that it uses the 
word redemption. It affirms of 'that , that it is limited, and was 
intended to be limited. That the sermon never denied" 

This distinction, and the doctrine based upon it, are thus 
stated in his Introduction to Butler's Analogy. " But still 
there are two points in the atonement so well substan- 
tiated, and yet so apparently contradictory, that it becomes 
an interesting inquiry, whether both positions can find an 
analogy in the course of events. The first is, that the 
atonement was originally applicable to all men — that it 
was not limited by its nature to any class of men, or any 
particular individuals — that it was an offering made for 
the race, and is, when made, in the widest and fullest 
sense, the property of man ; and the second is, that it is 
actually applied to only a portion of the race, and that it 
was the purpose of God that it should be so applied. 5 ' 

He then attempts an analogy between these doctrines 
and the provisions of nature, in the course of which be 
remarks, " We defy the most acute defender of the doc- 
trine of a limited atonement, to produce an instance in the 
provisions of God where there was a designed limitation 
of the thing." Again : " But still it was the purpose — the 

17* 



394 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

decree of God, that this atonement should be actually ap- 
plied to but a part — we believe ultimately a large part of 
the human family. By this we mean that it is in fact so 
applied, and that this fact is the expression of the purpose 
or decree of God." 

Mr. B. here gives an example of the limitation which he 
so confidently denies. For if that provision is not limited, 
the benefits of which are applied, by the decree of God, to 
but a part of mankind, we have yet to ascertain the mean- 
ing of the term. 

It is in immediate connection with the foregoing pas- 
sage that he makes this remark, to which the attention of 
the reader has already been called. " We interpret the 
decrees of God, so far as we can do it, by facts ; and we 
say that the actual result, by whatever means brought 
about, is the expression of the design of God," So that if 
any one is damned, the " result" proves that it was the 
" decree" or " design" of God, not only that the atonement 
should not be applied in his case, but that damnation 
should be his eternal lot, notwithstanding all that might be 
done, professedly, for his salvation. 

From these quotations it appears that Mr. B. considers 
the full, free, and sincere offer of salvation— of all the bliss 
of heaven — to every creature perfectly compatible with the 
supposed fact that the atonement, the application of which 
is absolutely necessary to the salvation of a sinner, is ap- 
plied to only a part of mankind, and that but a part of them 
are redeemed : so that while it would bind his .hands, and 
palsy his tongue, and freeze his heart, to be required to be- 
lieve and preach a limited atonement, his hands are per- 
fectly free, and his tongue is as the pen of a ready writer, 
and his heart warm when he comes to preach a dying Sa- 
viour to sinners whom that Saviour never redeemed, to 
whom the atonement is destined by the decree of God 
never to be applied, whose damnation was decreed from. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM, 



395 



eternity, and who, consequently, have no more opportunity 
of salvation than the devils in hell. 

"We confess that if this be Mr. B.'s commission, we have 
not a very exalted opinion of it ; and we must go else- 
where than to his theory for a satisfactory illustration of 
the sincerity of God, 

Mr. B. anticipates an objection to his doctrine of limited 
redemption. " But it is still said that it is unreasonable 
for men to suffer in consequence of not being put in pos- 
session of the universal atonement ; and that Christianity 
affirms there is no hope of salvation but in the Son of God. 
So it does. But the affirmation is not that men are guilty 
for not being acquainted with that scheme, but that they 
lie under the curses of the antecedent state before mentioned, 
from which Christianity came to deliver." — p. 45. 

According to this, sinners are not condemned for failing 
to avail themselves of the provisions of salvation, but for 
the antecedent guilt which renders the means of salvation 
necessary. 

It is remarkable, however, that this argument does not 
touch the question of the sincerity of God in offering sal- 
vation to those whose damnation he has decreed. It is 
designed to vindicate his justice in withholding what is ab- 
solutely necessary to salvation. We care not to dispute 
this point at present. Admitting, then, for argument's sake, 
that the justice of God is unimpeachable, we still ask, 
can he sincerely offer salvation to those from whom he 
withholds, in pursuance of his eternal decree, what is indis- 
pensable to their salvation 1 This is the point on which 
we would fix attention. Suppose that a large number of 
the subjects of an earthly sovereignty incur the penalty of 
death. Their sovereign feels the necessity of enforcing 
the claims of government, and yet is reluctant to cut off so 
many of his subjects. He devises a scheme by which he 
thinks the authority of government can be sustained, and 



396 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM*. 



the rebels pardoned. This scheme is equally applicable 
to all ; but, as it is supposed that no injustice would be 
done to any by the execution of the penalty, he concludes 
to apply it to a certain number only, selecting the persons 
to be saved. So far, we allow, for the sake of argument, 
that all is right.. But suppose that this sovereign were to 
commission his ministers to go and' announce to these 
rebels the plan of mercy, and offer pardon to them indis- 
criminately, when it was his settled purpose, known to his 
messengers, that the scheme was intended to be made 
available only to a part of their number — suppose he were 
to hold those messengers punishable, as violaters of their 
commission, in case they should intimate that pardon was 
not equally the privilege of all — would that sovereign be 
lauded for his sincerity? Would that governor be deemed 
sincere who employs men to excite hopes of pardon in 
the breasts of criminals whom he has predetermined shall 
be executed ? And yet this is the very course which New 
Divinity ascribes to the God of heaven. We would fain 
vindicate Him from the praise with which it dishonours 
him. We have no partiality for the Calvinism of the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, but we like it much 
better than New Divinity. It does not deceive by flou- 
rishes about a general atonement, while it holds to a 
limited redemption* 

This distinction between the atonement and its applica- 
tion, apart from the use to which it is applied, is, in our 
estimation, wholly untenable. Suffering alone does not 
constitute atonement. It must be suffering for that par- 
ticular purpose. It must be suffering applied. The idea 
of atonement includes, essentially, the idea of its applica- 
tion. If there are those to whom the sufferings of Christ 
are not applied for the purpose of atonement, there are 
those for whom no atonement is made, whatever may be 
the case as to the mere applicability of his sufferings. 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 397 

Those who adhere to this distinction, will find them- 
selves involved in this difficulty — either none of the great 
and varied blessings which are conferred on the ungodly, 
come to them through the atonement, or they receive those 
blessings in consequence of an atonement that has never 
been applied to them ; or the atonement is, and is not 
applied to them, at the same time. 

The state of the case is this — it is not the application 
of the atonement that is needed, to make the sinner a 
Christian, but the application of certain additional benefits 
procured by the atonement, the application of which de- 
pends upon our repentance and faith ; such as pardon,, 
adoption, and regenerating influences. The atonement 
itself is applied to all. 

The distinction between atonement and redemption is 
also unwarrantable. Redemption includes the entire con- 
nection between the sufferings of Christ and our salvation. 
The great transactions of mercy which are represented 
by the word atonement are far more frequently represented 
by the word redemption. How, we ask, is atonement 
effected ? By the sufferings of Christ. And are we not 
redeemed by the same means ? " Ye are not redeemed 
with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with 
the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb slain from the 
foundation of the world." 

The New School men are great sticklers for the doc- 
trine of free agency. One might suppose, from the man- 
ner in which they assert and contend for it, that they were 
specially set for its defence. But the freedom they as- 
cribe to man is merely nominal. It is just such freedom 
as they can reconcile with the eternal and unalterable 
foreordination of every action and event. It is true, there 
is much dispute between the parties in the Calvinistic 
churches respecting predestination ; but the controversy 
relates to the reasons by which Jehovah was influenced 



398 NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

in his predeterminations, and to the manner in which he 
brings them to pass. That he has, for some reason, fore- 
ordained, and that in some way or other he brings to pass, 
every event, they alike believe. 

The means by which they attempt to reconcile these 
hostile tenets, consist in plausible definitions of the terms 
employed. But no matter how plentifully they use the 
terms which convey the idea of freedom, or how they de- 
fine them, the freedom of the human mind, according to 
their system, is nothing more than the freedom of the dif- 
ferent parts of a complicated machine to act according to 
the plan on which it is constructed, and in obedience to 
the impulses of the steam, or water power, by which it is 
put in motion. Says Mr. Payne, " Upon the whole, I 
have no hesitation in saying, that the utmost freedom, 
which a man possesses, or can possess, is liberty to act 
as he chooses." We should consider this liberty enough 
for human beings, and a little too much, were we not also 
required to believe that every volition of the human mind 
is predetermined by God himself, and produced by means 
adapted and directed by him, to the production of the fore- 
appointed result. 

So far as we are able to gather the New School philo- 
sophy of mental operations, and their connection with 
divine influence, from their theological writings, it appears 
to be this : the volitions are determined by the emotions, the 
emotions by the perceptions, the perceptions by surround- 
ing circumstances, and the circumstances by God himself. 
When God would produce a certain class of actions, he 
surrounds the mind with the corresponding objects ; these 
produce infallibly the required perceptions ; the percep- 
tions act upon the susceptibilities and produce the corres- 
ponding emotions ; these cause the foreordained volitions ; 
and the volitions are succeeded by the actions. In this 
way is God supposed to bring to pass both good and evil 



NEW DIVINITY CALVINISM. 



399 



actions. The world of mankind is thus reduced to a vast 
theatre of automata, consisting of corporeal machines, 
each including a spiritual machine. The internal ma- 
chinery is acted upon by external influences, entering by 
certain avenues for that purpose. The internal puts the 
external machinery in motion. The great Author of na- 
ture acts as the wire-worker, who manages every move- 
ment. Sitting in the centre of his vast resources of influ- 
ence, he touches one cord, and men go to work ploughing, 
sowing, reaping, making books, preaching sermons, or 
killing each other, as may be ordained. He touches an- 
other, and some sit in grave council on the affairs of the 
automaton community. He brings to bear another class 
of influences, and they proceed to dispute whether they 
are free or not, and to play off all the subtilties of theo- 
logical controversy. This is the way in which, accord- 
ing to this theory, God is supposed to govern mind ; and 
all these movements, we are assured, were predetermined 
by him before he originated this wonderful device. 



400 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION* 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

CONCLUSION. 

Whatever differences may exist between he Old and 
New School parties, it is certain that the latter have not 
given up Calvinism. They hold on to its fundamental 
principles. Their system is liable to all the objections 
which they bring against that of the Old School. It has 
the same Antinomian tendencies. All that is necessary to 
make them apparent, is to strip it of its inconsistent ap- 
pendages. It furnishes the same encouragement to pre- 
sumption and religious inactivity, by teaching that the 
elect were chosen to salvation before they were born ; 
and that every thing necessary to their salvation was 
ordered as infallibly as the event itself. It renders the 
case of the non-elect equally hopeless, and extinguishes 
all motive for effort to obtain salvation, by the doctrine 
that God withholds from them influences which are abso- 
lutely necessary to their salvation. And when I hear the 
advocates of this system address the sinner in the language 
of severe warning and rebuke — when I hear them say to 
him, in the language of Mr. Barnes, " Go home this day, 
impenitent sinner, if God spares a rebel like you to get 
home — go home and reflect, that if you pass through this 
revival unmoved • if you resist all the appeals that are 
made to you from day to day, and week to week, the pro- 
bability is, that you will be damned," I am affected with 
indescribable emotions. If I were to address my feelings 
to the sinner, to whom the appeal is made, it would be in 
language like this : Sinner, if the preacher's creed be true, 
you are elected to salvation from eternity, or excluded by 
the decree of Jehovah, from the covenant of redemption, 
and eternally consigned to misery. If the former, you 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 401 

are safe : if the latter, there is no hope of salvation for 
you. Your passing this revival unmoved will be a mat- 
ter of course. You need not permit yourself to be flattered 
into the persuasion that there is salvation for you. It is 
true, you will be saved if you repent and believe, but God 
has decreed to withhold from you the influences absolutely 
necessary to repentance and faith : and hence it is as cer- 
tain as that God lives, that you never will repent and be- 
lieve. You have, it is said, a natural ability ; but that con- 
sists in nothing more than the possession of your consti- 
tutional faculties, and it exists in connection with a moral 
inability or disinclination to obey God, which nothing but 
his special grace can remove, and that is given to none 
but the elect. You are told that Christ died for all — that 
he died for you, and that he offers salvation to you ; all 
this, however, can be of no avail, except to increase your 
damnation, unless that atonement be applied ; but its appli- 
cation is limited : — Christ has died for you, but he has not 
redeemed you. You are called free agents, and are blamed 
for your conduct, but He who has fixed beforehand your 
destiny has also decreed all your actions, so that you have 
done nothing, will do nothing, can do nothing, but what 
God has foreordained. I pity you ; and the more so as you 
are so insulted by those who, according to their own state- 
ments, serve God only as he makes them willing, and 
whom you would equal in every good thing, if God had 
only shown you equal favour. 

And while this part of their creed developes such re- 
volting tendencies, the doctrine of natural ability tends to 
destroy all sense of dependance on the Holy Spirit. We 
do not say that those who hold the doctrine of natural 
ability expunge from their creed the doctrine of the ne- 
cessity of spiritual influence, but that these doctrines are con- 
tradictory. In proportion as the one is believed and acted 
upon, the influence of the other is neutralized. How can 



402 NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 

a man feel dependant on God for that which is at any mo- 
ment within the reach of his natural ability ? This ten- 
dency of the doctrine of natural ability is evidently felt by 
its advocates. They sometimes endeavour to unite these 
two doctrines in their preaching; with what success may 
be illustrated by a reference to one of their own writers. 
In an article in the Christian Spectator, entitled " An In- 
quiry into the true Way of Preaching on Ability," we have 
the following : — 

" It has been common, if not universal, for the orthodox 
pulpit of New-England, while insisting on man's natural 
ability, to announce it as an absolute certainty, that he 
never w r ill obey, without a sovereign intervention of special 
grace. This, unquestionably, was correct : it was but to 
tell the truth, and truth of the highest importance. But 
what is the state of an attentive, convinced mind, under 
such instruction ? convinced, at the same time, that it has 
natural power, and that, left to itself it is as certain as its 
own existence, that it never will exert that power. Let 
such a mind, then, suppose itself left to itself; having no- 
thing on which its hopes can rest but its natural power. 
Would it not, under that impression, be without all reason 
for exerting its power ? and could any one reasonably ex- 
pect that it would exert it ?"* — Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 246. 

* The author of this essay is the Rev. Dr. Skinner. We were 
not aware of this fact until the publication of his recent work, en- 
titled, " Aids to Preaching and Hearing," in which this essay is re- 
published, with slight alterations in the style. It was in this article 
that we found the objection to the Arminian views of ability, (noticed 
on page 64,) namely,— that it identifies divine and human agency. 
To this objection Dr. S. refers in his preface, a circumstance which 
shows that he considers it of great importance. ' 

Had we known earlier the source of this article, we should have 
considered it entitled to more particular notice, as from the reputa- 
tion and undoubted ability of its author, we may safely presume that 
it presents the most effective argument of which that side of the 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 403 

What is this but a plain admission that one of these 
doctrines neutralizes the other, and that it is therefore 
necessary to keep back the one, while insisting on the 
other ? 

question is capable. Not that any of its arguments have been over- 
looked ; but we would have considered it an advantage to be able 
to connect them with so distinguished a name. 

But this essay, while it bears the impress of great talents, is a 
singularly contradictory production. In the first part the author 
maintains " that God unquestionably demands of every sinner an 
instantaneous conversion, — a conversion begun and completed in the 
same moment, from sin to himself," that " the Bible seems to know 
nothing of gradual conversions; though doubtless there are many 
instances of persons, who, after a period longer or shorter of outward 
reformations, and internal conflicts with the Spirit of grace, are at 
length made willing to submit to God." — p. 210. Of the opposite 
doctrine he remarks, " Law, grace, holiness, God, and all eternal 
things, will, as a matter of course, be despised by the people, where 
preachers, in any way, or on any pretext whatever, give them a 
dispensation from strict duty, or consent to any hind or degree of 
gradualism in conversion" — -p. 214. Exercises performed as con- 
ducing to conversion are reprobated on the ground that they are 
impenitent and sinful. — pp. 170, 171, 208. He deprecates the pre- 
valence of the style of preaching which grows out of the theory to 
which he thus objects. 

But he is not fully satisfied with the style of preaching to which 
his own principles lead. He gives as a specimen "* Repent, repent 
this very instant : we say not try to repent, or exercise thought in 
order to repent, but instantly repent.* " u Such a strain," he says-, 
" has been so familiar, especially in seasons of revival, that I almost 
tremble to express a suspicion of its not being precisely correct." — 
p. 235. To this preaching, which is absurd enough, but perfectly 
consistent with the doctrine, that God demands of every sinner 
a conversion which must be "begun and completed in the same 
moment," and which consists, as he elsewhere expresses it, in an 
"indivisible act of the mind," he objects, that "It allows no place for 
effort, preliminary to the very act of duty itself" — p. 234. He con- 
tends that " the mind does not possess the power to put itself di- 
rectly, or by a mere volitien, into a repentant state."— p. 237. And 



404 



N E W DIVINITY C ONCLUSION. 



The doctrines of modern Calvinism do not constitute 
one harmonious scheme. It is a system (if a system it 
may be called) of contrary principles. It sets the gospel 
against the law, and the law against the gospel. Instead 

in the next article on u How to repent," he remarks, "Repenting, 
or turning to God, is a state of mind which a man cannot bring him- 
self into by one mere volition. He cannot repent simply by resolv- 
ing or saying within himself, I will repent. That resolution may 
fix his mind on repenting, and be the beginning of a series of mental 
acts and exercises which will result in his repentance; but his re- 
pentance is not its immediate sequent, &c." — p. 256. If these are 
not contradictions, we know not the meaning of the term. He first 
denies that there is any kind or degree of gradualism in conversion, 
and insists that it must be begun and completed in the same mo- 
ment; and then denies that conversion can be accomplished by one 
effort, and contends for gradualism, or a series of mental acts and 
exercises which will result in repentance, &c. He anticipates and 
refutes the very objections which he elsewhere brings against the 
doctrine of preliminary effort, as held by Arminians, so that Dr. S. 
in one part of his book refutes Dr. S. in another part. 

Where, then, is now the difference between Dr. S. and Arminians? 
Has he come over entirely? Not yet. Although he admits of "ef- 
forts preliminary," he has his own opinion as to what exercises are 
admissible, and does not admit prayer among them. He objects to 
it on the ground that, unless it is " an exercise of holiness," or the 
act of one who already loves God, it is sin. — p. 24. The exercises 
for which he pleads are thus stated : "All I have stated is, that, in 
order to repent, the objects that work repentance in the mind must 
be thought of and considered." — p. 259. We would, however, sug- 
gest whether thought and consideration, unless they are " holy ex- 
ercises," are not as certainly sinful as prayer. Does not the principle 
apply equally to prayer and to all other exercises ? On what ground 
will it be maintained that prayer, in order to become holy is impeni- 
tent, and therefore sinful, while other acts, such as Dr. S.may choose 
to enjoin, are perfectly right, although they confessedly precede re- 
pentance, and are in order to it. It seems that Dr. S. has no objec- 
tions to the sinner's performing acts as prerequisite to repentance, 
so that he performs those for which the doctor has a preference. 

There is another point of difference between Dr. S. and ArmL 



NEW DIVINITY-— CONCLUSION. 



405 



of blowing its " wind of doctrine" steadily from one point, 
it assails the church with contrary breezes, driving her 
first in one direction and then in another. When she 
sails too near the shore on one side, she must be blown 
off toward the other, so that she is kept constantly tacking. 
At one time it is important to preach the " doctrines of 
grace" as Calvinists understand them ; then the church 
runs into Antinomianism, The doctrine of natural ability 
must next be preached as a corrective ; then the church 
runs toward Pelagianism. 

An exemplification of these remarks may be found in 
Dr. Beecher's reply to Dr. Porter, already referred to. 
Dr. P. had charged him with " exalting human agency, 
so as virtually to lose sight of human dependence." Dr. 
B. justified himself by stating that " the doctrine of de- 
pendance had been reiterated and overstated till it had 
produced, extensively in the community, the results of 

hians. While he concedes the doctrine of exercises preliminary 
and conducive to regeneration, he also asserts, in plain terms, the 
doctrine which is falsely charged on Arminianism, namely, that zra- 
penitent exercises are to be performed as conducive to regeneration. 
He contends for " effort preliminary to the very act of duty itself," 
— of course the effort cannot be an act of duty, and must therefore 
be one not required by the law of God. He also contends for " a 
series of acts and exercises" of which " repentance is not the imme- 
diate sequent," but " which will result in repentance." Of course, 
these acts, preceding repentance, must be impenitent. Here, then, 
is the very doctrine of which he says, on page 171, "To state it, is 
sufficient censure. Men directed to do what is admitted to be sin, 
in order to their coming to repentance and securing the divine fa- 
vour!" As his theory identifies repentance and regeneration, he is 
compelled to forbid all preparatory exercises, or to require impeni- 
tent ones. Sometimes he does the one, and sometimes the other. 
To escape one absurdity he flies to another. As Arminians do not 
consider repentance and regeneration to be the same, they can en- 
join preliminary exercises, and yet require that they shall be strictly 
penitent* 



406 



N£\V DIVINITY— CONCLUSION. 



fatalism with multitudes. If free agency was admitted at 
all, it was so out of sight, or so dimly seen in the back 
ground, that a large portion of the community had ceased 
to feel the practical influence of the doctrine of accounta- 
bility, while many were in theory, and more in feelings 
fatalists. In this condition, the people did not need high- 
toned Calvinism on the point of dependance: they had 
been crammed with it, and were dying with excessive ali* 
ment, and needed a long and vigorous prescription of free 
agency to produce an alterative, and render the truth salu- 
tary, by administering the proper potions in due season. 
Nor was there for a long time any danger of overaction 
on the subject of free agency." — Harvey on Moral Agency^ 
p. 205. 

Dr. B. administered his " vigorous prescription of free 
agency," which operated so powerfully that his patients 
were going over to the other extreme, as is intimated in 
the following extract : " And before I received your letter, 
I had felt the propriety of beginning to balance the over- 
actings of free agency, by giving more prominence, and 
frequency, and power to the doctrine of absolute depend- 
ance on the Holy Ghost." — p. 206. 

We are no longer at a loss how to account for the im- 
patience w r hieh this class of theologians manifest, when 
required to maintain something like systematic consist- 
ency in their preaching. Robert Hall was not alone in 
this particular. " It makes no small demand on our pa- 
tience," says Mr. Barnes, " when we see the system- 
maker remove angle after angle, and apply stroke after 
stroke, to some great mass of truth which a mighty genius 
has struck out, but which keen-eyed and jealous ortho- 
doxy will not admit to its proper bearing on the souls of 
men, until it is located in a creed, and cramped into some 
frame-work of faith, that has been reared around the Bible. 
Our sympathy with such men as Butler, and Chalmers, 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 407 

and Foster, and Hall, is far greater than with Turretine 
or Ridgely. With less patience still do we listen to those 
whose only business it is to shape and reduce to a pre- 
scribed form ; who never look at a passage in the Bible or 
a fact in nature, without first robbing it of its freshness, 
by an attempt to give it a sectarian location : who never 
stumble on an original and unclassified idea, without asking 
whether the system-maker had left any niche for the late- 
born intruder ; and who applies to it all tests, as to a non 
descript substance in chymistry, in order to fasten on it 
the charge of an affinity with some rejected confession, 
or some creed of a suspected name." — Introductory Essay, 
p. 16. 

All this looks very pretty and plausible at first sight ; 
but let us examine it. What, we ask, is the grand differ- 
ence between a disciplined, and an undisciplined mind ? 
Is it not that the former refers facts to principles, and 
principles to systems ; while the latter stores away its ac- 
quisitions in disorder ? Does Mr. B.'s knowledge consist 
in "facts," and "unclassified ideas," and "great masses 
of truth," on which he has stumbled, or which his " mighty 
genius has struck out," and for which he can find no 
" niche" in his philosophical or religious theories 1 We 
cannot avoid regarding with suspicion that theological sys- 
tem which furnishes no " niche" for a " great mass of 
revealed truth ;" and we confess that it made " no small 
demand on our patience" when Mr. B., acting the part of 
the system-maker, applied stroke after stroke to the doctrine 
of a general atonement, until it was made to unite with the 
doctrine that God eternally and unchangeably decreed the 
salvation of a definite number of the human race, and the 
damnation of the rest. 

It is alarming to reflect on the extent to which New 
Divinity must have multiplied spurious conversions, and 
Unfounded hopes of salvation. We cannot see how it is 



408 NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION* 

possible for any to be converted by attending to its spe- 
cific directions. We have shown, not only that many of 
its teachers forbid prayer, or attending to the means of 
grace, as conducing to conversion, and insist that the sin- 
ner shall perform the work in his own strength, by one 
single act; but likewise, that this is precisely what the 
system requires, and that any other directions would be in- 
consistent with its leading principles. We would not be 
understood to entertain the opinion that none are truly con- 
verted in the churches where it is preached. We doubt 
not that there are, in those churches, many holy men and 
women, and many sound conversions. But these persons 
are not indebted to this system for their conversion, or for 
their present excellence. There are several ways in which 
genuine conversions in such churches may be accounted 
for, without giving the credit to New Divinity. Some- 
times individuals are powerfully awakened by the preach- 
ing, (for many of its advocates preach the law with great 
power and effect,) go to their homes, follow the directions 
of the Bible, and obtain mercy, without knowing what 
other directions might be given. Many are so deeply 
awakened, that they follow their own previous impres- 
sions and the impulses of the Spirit, praying and agoniz- 
ing for pardon, and regeneration, and peace, in despite of 
the intimations that in so doing they are acting the part 
of rebels, and growing worse and worse. Others, although 
they suppose that these instructions must be right, and 
conclude that they are Christians because they have 
changed their minds, purposed to serve God, or performed 
some one act which they have been told is submission, 
dissatisfied with their condition, and determined to enjoy 
all that they believe to be the privilege of Christians, press 
on to higher attainments, and thus reach, ultimately, the 
character which they were previously supposed to pos- 
sess. Besides, ministers of this faith frequently give 



-NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 40& 

instructions directly opposite to their creed — the very in- 
structions which they at other times condemn. It is 
astonishing with what readiness and composure they con- 
tradict themselves. But how fearful the probability that 
thousands will conclude that they are Christians, because 
they have " submitted," as it is called, by taking one single 
step, — by doing what, according to Dr. Skinner, they 
could " begin and complete in the same moment ;" and 
that they will remain in that condition ; especially as they 
are taught that, being once converted, they can never be 
lost, and that Christian experience is perfectly compatible 
w T ith being carnal, sold under sin, and committing it every 
day. It may be truly said with regard to this system, 
Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth unto 
life ; and that thousands more do not go in thereat, is 
owing to the influence of those gospel truths on the public 
mind, which New Divinity finds so much in its way. 

We recognise one of the most pernicious tendencies of 
this system in the necessity which it imposes, of conform- 
ing the evidences of religious experience, and the stand- 
ard of religious enjoyment, to its false views of regenera- 
tion. It is not to be supposed that those whose efforts to 
become Christians have gone no further than the per- 
formance of one single mental act, can have the Spirit 
of God bearing witness with their spirits that they are the 
children of God, and also the consequent peace and joy. 
They must, in the earlier stages of their profession, de- 
rive all their evidence that they are Christians from the 
consciousness merely of their having performed that one 
act, which they are told is sufficient to make them such. 
If this inference is not sufficient to make them happy, they 
must be instructed that such feelings are not usually 
attendant on conversion. It will be the more necessary 
to guard them on this point, if they are surrounded by 
Methodist converts, and have opportunities of contrasting 

IS 



410 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION". 



their experience with the experience of those who are re^ 
joicing in God. Hence sermons have been preached, 
and tracts written, in which the great object has been to 
show that regeneration is perfectly consistent with the 
absence of those feelings of enjoyment. The desire for 
those emotions is stigmatized as a selfish desire for hap- 
piness. Attempts are made to cast suspicion on the ex- 
perience of those whose conversion is succeeded by 
great joy. 

The effect of this must be to strengthen the hands of 
infidelity. Let one who has entertained doubts of the 
truth of Christianity be awakened by the Spirit, after hav- 
ing listened for years to animated and eloquent representa* 
tions of the power as distinguished from the form of reli- 
gion — after having been accustomed to hear the disquie- 
tude of the unconverted* contrasted with the "great peace'* 
of those who are born of God ; let him be told that sub- 
mission is one indivisible act, which he can perform this 
moment ; and when he has performed what he supposes 
is the act required, and finds himself counted among Chris- 
tians, and looks in vain for the happiness which he has 
heard so gloriously described* and is told that men may 
be converted and experience no change in their feelings, 
and finds a disposition to class those feelings with de- 
lusion—what will be the probable effect? He will re- 
lapse into his former skepticism. He will say, I have 
been of the opinion that all the enjoyment about which 
Christians have made so much ado, was nothing more 
than the feeling induced by the supposition, whether true 
or false, that they were in the favour of God, that an infi- 
del is quite as happy when he imagines himself safe, and 
I am now confirmed in this opinion. 

Indeed, this system runs into infidelity at several points. 
We have an example of this tendency of the doctrine of 
natural ability, in a passage in the essay of Dr. Skinner^ 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 411 

to which reference has just been made. He writes, " Be- 
sides, what, according to Scripture, is the primary ground 
of man's condemnation ? Not his having refused the prof- 
fered power of the Spirit, but his not having used his 
faculties aright. Thus the heathen are declared to be 
inexcusable ; not because they have rejected the Spirit, 
but because they are rational beings, and creation shows 
to them the perfections of its Author. They are men ; 
God's glory is spread out before them, over his works ; 
therefore, they are without excuse for not knowing and 
loving God. The conclusion follows, from the premises 
mentioned ; no other premise is required to justify it. 
The heathen, depraved as they are, are condemned on 
this sole account." 

It is here plainly asserted that the heathen have every 
thing that is necessary to their " knowing and loving God" 
in their own faculties, and the works of creation. * The 
inference is irresistible, that neither revelation nor spiritual 
influence is necessary ; the very thing for which skeptics 
contend. And we are told, with perfect consistency, that 
the heathen are condemned, not because they have re- 
jected the Spirit, but solely on account of their not having 
availed themselves of the light of nature and the power 
which they possessed naturally. Had these sentiments 
been published from Tammany Hall, they would have 
shocked the feelings of the religious portion of the com- 
munity ; but coming from the eloquent and popular pastor 
of the Mercer-street Presbyterian Church, they are to be 
received as the pure gospel. This, however, is a consist- 
ent exhibition of the doctrine of natural ability. 

There will also be found a perfect agreement between 
Deism and New Divinity, on the nature of depravity, 
holiness, and regeneration. Deists do not hesitate to 
attribute depravity to man. Grant, then, that it does not 
adhere to the constitution as a source of depraved action ; 



412 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 



that it is not hereditary ; that it consists- solely in volun- 
tary action, and they will not object. Grant them that re- 
generation is nothing more than a change in the voluntary 
exercises, which man is capable of effecting without super- 
natural influences ; and that holiness is nothing more than 
such right voluntary action as man is naturally able to per- 
form^ and there will be a perfect agreement. They may 
entertain no partiality for the technicalities by which these 
doctrines are represented, but on the doctrines them- 
selves there will be no dispute. In fact, New Divinity, 
so far as religious experience is concerned, is nothing 
more than the religion of nature,, associated with gospel 
motives. 

This system encourages the sinner in the postpone- 
ment of repentance. He possesses the ability naturally, 
and independently of the Holy Spirit — an ability which 
no depravity can impair, to do all that is necessary to his 
salvation at any moment, inasmuch as it consists in " one 
indivisible act of the mind." The only danger that can 
attend postponement, according to this theory, arises from 
the possibility of dying so suddenly that there is not time 
for a single volition. 

And while this system on the one hand encourages aw- 
ful presumption, on the other it overwhelms with despair. 
If the sinner is not deeply convicted, he is in danger of 
being led by it to suppose himself a Christian, without 
ever having experienced godly sorrow for sin, or without 
having called on God, in earnest prayer, for pardon ; 
merely because he has made up his mind to be a Chris- 
tian, or performed some act which the sinner may begin 
and complete in one moment. While those who are fully 
awakened, and can be satisfied with nothing short of 
genuine evidence of their acceptance with God, as the 
ground of the conclusion that they are Christians, are for- 
bidden to use the only means of obtaining that assurance. 



NEW DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 413 

and are in some instances driven to madness. They are 
told that they are wholly impenitent ; that if they were 
penitent they would be Christians ; that their deep dis- 
tress is nothing more than sorrow for the consequences 
of their sins ; it is mere selfishness ; they are afraid of 
hell ; it makes them worse instead of better ; they are not 
to pray, for the prayers of the wicked are an abomination ; 
they can give their hearts to God, and be Christians in a 
moment, if they will. The poor sinner makes an effort, 
but it produces no perceptible change. He supposes that 
conversion will bring peace of mind, but there remains 
nothing, as yet, but a sense of condemnation. He cannot 
be induced to imagine that any one act which he has per- 
formed is regeneration, and to " indulge a hope and he 
is thus driven to despair, unless he receive other instruct 
tions. 

Let it not be supposed that we judge of the moral and 
religious character of the advocates of this theory, and the 
members of their churches, by its logical and practical 
tendencies. It is so operated upon and neutralized, by 
other and purer systems, that it has not had the opportu- 
nity of exhibiting its legitimate effects on society. Be* 
sides opposition from other quarters, it finds in Methodism 
an almost omnipresent foe. But if it were to succeed in 
putting down all opposition, and securing the field to itself^ 
it would bring on the millennium of infidelity. 



THE END* 





415 






CONTENTS. 








Page 


Chapter I. 


Ability - 


7 


II. 


Ability — continued 


14 


III. 


Ability — continued 


42 


IV. 


Ability — continued 


59 


V. 


Depravity - 


74 


VI. 


Depravity — continued 


84 


VII. 


Depravity — continued 


93 


VIII. 


Depravity — continued 


101 


IX. 


Holiness - 


- 106 


X. 


Character of infants - 


115 


XI. 


Regeneration - 

o 


119 


XII. 


Regeneration — continued 


134 


XIII. 


Regeneration — continued 


141 


XIV. 


Regeneration — continued 


153 


XV. 


Regeneration — continued 


- 166 


XVI. 


Moral Suasion - 


170 


XVII. 


Moral Suasion — continued 


178 


XVIII. 


Prayer - 


190 


XIX. 


Prayer — -continued 


« 204 


XX. 


Prayer — continued 


217 


XXI. 


Means of Grace - 


« 226 


XXII. 


Means of Grace— continued 


236 


XXTTT 


r^nl VI X\\ <5TY1 - «» - ■ 


250 


XXIV. 


Calvinism — continued 


263 


XXV. 


Calvinism- — continued 


- 271 



416 



CONTEXTS TO NEW DIVINITY. 



Chapter XXVI. Calvinism — continued 
XXVII. Calvinism — continued 
XXVIII. Calvinism — continued 
XXIX. Calvinism — continued 
XXX. Calvinism — continued 
XXXI. Calvinism — continued 
XXXII. Calvinism — continued 

XXXIII. Calvinism — continued 

XXXIV. Calvinism — continued 
XXXV. Calvinism — continued 

XXXVI. Conclusion - 



PAGE 

- 284 
297 

- 311 
321 

- 329 
338 

- 348 
358 

- 378 
386 

- 400 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 017 578 468 8 • 



